UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


OF" 


Class 


Industrial  Conference 


Under  the  Auspices  of 

The  National  Civic  Federation 


„  ., 

Held  at 


Rooms  of  Board  of  Trade  and  Transportation 
New   York 

December  8,  9,  10,  1902 


NEW  YORK 

THE  WINTHROP  PRESS 

1903 


Industrial  Conference 


Under  the  Auspices  of 

The  National  Civic  Federation 


Held  at 

Rooms  of  Board  of  Trade  and  Transportation 
New   York 

December  8,  9,  10,  1902 


or  THE 
UNIVERSITY 

or 


NEW  YORK 

THB  WINTHROP  PRIM 
1903 


COPYRIGHT,   1903 

BY 
RALPH  M.  EASLEY 


\v 


PREFACE. 

THIS  volume  contains  the  stenographic  report  of  the 
third  National  Conference  held  under  the  auspices 
of  the  Industrial  Department  of  the  National  Civic 
Federation.  The  first  Conference  was  held  in  Chicago, 
December  17  and  18,  1900;  the  second  Conference 
was  held  in  New  York,  December  16  and  17,  1901, 
and  the  third  Conference  in  New  York,  December 
8,  9  and  10,  1902.  Papers  and  discussions  of  the 
first  and  second  conferences  have  been  published  in 
a  volume  entitled  "National  Conference  on  Indus- 
trial Conciliation." 

The  third  Conference  marks  a  step  in  advance  of 
the  preceding  conferences  in  that  the  discussions 
covered  not  merely  the  general  subject  of  Concil- 
iation and  Arbitration,  but  also  the  practical  questions 
which  employers  and  employees  must  settle  when 
they  meet  in  a  conciliation  or  arbitration  conference. 
Such  are  the  questions  of  apprenticeship,  piece  and 
premium  methods  of  payment,  use  of  machinery, 
restrictions  on  output,  hours  of  labor,  employment 
of  non-unionists,  boycotts,  etc.  The  third  day  was 
devoted  to  the  discussion  of  the  system  of  joint 
trade  agreements.  It  is  not  too  much  to  say  that 
many  of  the  questions,  whose  theoretical  discussion 
during  the  earlier  sessions  seemed  to  bring  no  cer- 
tain conclusions,  were  shown  in  these  closing  sessions 
to  be  capable  of  a  practical  solution  when  once  that 
system  is  fully  adopted. 

iii 


504 


CONTENTS. 

PACK 

Opening  Address,  Senator  M.  A.  Hanna,  Chairman  In- 
dustrial Department,  National  Civic  Federation.  ...  1 

Address  of  Welcome,  Mayor  Seth  Low 2 

Address,  Alfred  Mosely 8 

Address,  P.  Walls,  General  Secretary  Blast  Furnace- 
men's  Association,  Great  Britain 25 

Address,  Archbishop  Ireland 28 

Address,  C.  U.  Carpenter,  Labor  Department,  National 
Cash  Register  Co.,  "Labor  Departments  for  Large 
Industrial  Organizations  " 38 

Address,  G.  C.  Sikes,  late  Secretary  Chicago  Street  Rail- 
way Commission 48 

Address,   Charles   Francis  Adams,    "Investigation   and 

Publicity  as  Opposed  to  Compulsory  Arbitration  " . .     58 

Address,  John  McMackin,    Labor  Commissioner,   State 

of  New  York 78 

Address,  G.  N.  Barnes,  Secretary  Amalgamated  Society 

of  Engineers,  Great  Britain 84 

Address,  John  R.  Commons,  "  Restriction  of  Output "...     92 

Address,  Frederick  A.  Halsey,  Associate  Editor  Amer- 
ican Machinist,  "  The  Premium  Plan  of  Paying  for 
Labor" 105 

Address,  James  O'Connell,  President  International  As- 
sociation of  Machinists 123 

Address,    Henry    White,    Secretary    United    Garment 

Workers  of  America,  "The  Problems  of  Machinery".  151 

Address,  George  Gunton,  "The  Eight  Hour  Day" 163 

Address,  A.  F.  Weber,  Chief  Statistician  Department  of 

Labor,  New  York,  " Hours  of  Labor" 189 

Address,   Lewis   Nixon,   President   United   States   Ship 

Building  Company 202 

v 


vi  CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

Address,  Theodore  Marburg,  Vice-President  American 

Economic  Association,  "Hours  of  Labor" 211 

Address,  George  H.  Barbour,  National  Association  of 
Manufacturers,  "The  Proposed  Eight  Hour  Law  on 
Government  Contracts  " 231 

Address,  R.  M.  Easley,  Secretary  National  Civic  Feder- 
ation   243 

Address,  Marcus  M.  Marks,  President  National  Clothiers' 

Association 249 

Address,  Samuel  Gompers,  President  American  Feder- 
ation of  Labor 255 

Address,  O.  C.  Barber,  President  Diamond  Match  Com- 
pany    288 

Address,  Frederick  Driscoll,  Commissioner  American 

Newspaper  Publishers'  Association 293 

Address,  Samuel  Mather,  of  Pickand-Mather  Company, 

Cleveland,  Ohio,  "Longshoremen's  Agreements".  .  .  300 

Address,  Daniel  Keefe,  President  International  Long- 
shoremen's Association .  303 

Address,  Frederick  T.  Towne,  President  National 

Founders'  Association 312 

Address,  M.  M.  Garland,  ex-President  Amalgamated 

Association  of  Iron  and  Steel  Workers 324 

Address,  A.  Beverly  Smith,  Secretary  Lithographers' 

Association  of  the  United  States 335 

Address,  Prof.  J.  W.  Jenks,  Cornell  University,  "The 

Analogy  Between  Strikes  and  War." 343 

Address,  John  Graham  Brooks,  "  Trade  Agreements", ...   351 

Address,  Senator  M.  A.  Hanna 363 


THE    NATIONAL    CIVIC    FEDERA- 
TION,   DECEMBER   8-9-10,    1902. 

THE  FIRST  SESSION  OF  THE  ANNUAL  MEET- 
ING OF  THE  INDUSTRIAL  DEPARTMENT 
WAS  HELD  IN  THE  ROOMS  OF  THE  BOARD 
OF  TRADE,  203  BROADWAY,  NEW  YORK, 
ON  THE  ABOVE  DATE. 

The  meeting  was  called  to  order  at  n  o'clock 
A.  M.  by  the  Chairman  of  the  Industrial  Department, 
SENATOR  MARCUS  A.  HANNA. 

The  following  are  the   proceedings   in   full. 

SENATOR  HANNA:  Gentlemen  of  the  Committee, 
in  extending  welcome  to  you  I  also  wish  to  extend 
congratulations.  Your  presence  here  to-day  is  in- 
dicative that  the  spirit  which  inspired  this  organiza- 
tion has  not  lost  interest  or  effect,  and,  coming  here 
to-day,  after  a  year's  absence,  we  desire  to  renew  our 
loyalty  to  the  cause  which  we  have  espoused  and  our 
determination  to  go  forward  with  this  good  work. 

i  am  glad  to  be  able  to  say  that  our  experiences 
in  the  last  year  have  proved  to  those  who  are  charged 
with  the  responsibilities  of  this  work  the  fact  that 
the  great  mass  of  the  American  people  are  in  sym- 


2  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

pathy  with  the  organization  and  its  work.  It  is  a 
very  important  factor  in  the  evolution  which  is  now 
taking  place  in  this  country.  This  great  industrial 
question  has  come  to  the  surface  and  is  demanding 
due  and  careful  consideration  by  the  people  of  the 
United  States.  No  more  important  question  claims 
their  attention  than  this  one,  which  seeks  to  bring 
about  a  better  relationship  between  capital  and  labor. 
The  object  of  this  meeting  to-day,  and  for  the  sev- 
eral days  for  which  we  are  to  meet,  is  to  discuss  in 
every  phase  of  this  question  all  matters  of  interest 
which  will  tend  to  the  improvement  of  these  condi- 
tions, as  affecting  these  two  great  factors,  and  which 
shall  interest  to  a  larger  extent  the  people  of  this 
country  to  join  with  us  in  this  work.  Public  opinion 
is  the  chief  arbiter  of  all  great  questions  affecting 
the  body  politic.  Therefore,  we  want  to  get  in  closer 
touch  with  the  people  everywhere,  and  feel  that  our 
work  is  commanding  not  only  their  respect  but  their 
sympathy. 

It  is  our  purpose  to  discuss  these  great  economic 
questions  fully,  so  that  the  thoughtful  men,  men  of 
experience,  can  lend  their  advice  and  contribute  their 
effort  and  sympathy  to  our  cause.  I  have  the  pleas- 
ure of  introducing  to  you  the  distinguished  Mayor  of 
New  York,  Mayor  Low. 

MAYORSETHLOW:  Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen — 
It  gives  me  great  pleasure  to  welcome  to  the  City  of 
New  York  this  committee  of  the  National  Civic 
Federation.  I  know  of  no  body  which  I  could  wel- 
come here  more  heartily,  because  it  seems  to  me 
there  is  no  problem  affecting  the  people  of  the  United 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  3 

States  more  important  than  the  industrial  problem 
of  which  your  chairman  has  spoken.  The  attitude 
of  the  Civic  Federation  to  this  problem  is  one  of  the 
most  encouraging  movements  of  our  day.  In  the 
first  place,  it  is  a  recognition  of  the  fact  that  there  is 
a  problem  and  that  there  is  something  to  be  said  on 
both  sides  of  it.  This  union  of  men  who  are  em- 
ployers and  men  who  represent  the  employees  to 
study  this  question  is  destined  to  be  the  most  im- 
portant factor,  I  am  confident,  in  bringing  about  the 
better  relationship  between  capital  and  labor  for 
which  we  all  hope.  And  it  is  so  destined,  it  seems  to 
me,  for  several  reasons;  first  of  all,  because  this 
Federation  is  made  up  not  only  of  capitalists  but  of 
"laborists" — men  who  have  made  a  study  of  the 
subject  from  their  own  point  of  view,  who  feel 
strongly  what  is  right  from  their  own  point  of  view, 
and  who  are  yet  broad-minded  enough  to  recognize 
that  others  may  see  and  may  help  to  solve  problems 
which  they  themselves  only  see  in  part.  When  a 
strike  takes  place  it  generally  comes  before  the  public 
with  both  parties  to  it  in  this  attitude,  that  each  is 
wholly  right  and  the  other  wholly  wrong.  The  very 
existence  of  this  Civic  Federation  assumes  that  there 
is  likely  to  be  right  on  both  sides,  and  that  the  wise 
policy  is  to  try  to  adjust  action  to  a  recognition  of 
what  is  right  on  each  side.  In  other  words,  this 
body  can,  by  mediation  and  conciliation,  do  much 
to  prevent  trouble,  rather  than  to  heal  it.  If  trouble 
comes  I  assume  that  this  Federation  always  is  ready 
to  do  what  it  can  to  remedy,  to  avert  the  mischief  that 
may  come  from  it.  But  it  stands  first  of  all  as  the 


4  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

living  witness  to  the  belief  on  the  part  of  many  of 
the  American  people  that  the  wisest  policy  is  to  pre- 
vent trouble  by  bringing  about  just  relationship  be- 
tween capital  and  labor,  and  that  justice  is  most 
likely  to  prevail  when  each  side  recognizes  that  there 
are  rights  on  the  other  side  that  must  be  considered. 
Because  this  is  your  attitude,  because  your  Federation 
is  so  organized,  because  the  problem  is  so  worthy  of 
the  best  thought  and  the  best  service  that  anybody 
can  give  to  it,  I  greet  you  again  in  the  name  of  the 
City  of  New  York  and  welcome  you  here  most  heart- 
ily. (Great  applause.) 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  work  of  this  organization  has 
extended  its  influence  beyond  the  confines  of  this 
country.  It  has  attracted  attention  in  Europe  to 
that  extent  that  men,  who  feel  the  same  interest  as 
we,  have  come  to  us  from  the  old  country  to  learn 
the  movements  and  the  lessons  that  we  are  trying 
to  teach  here.  Mr.  Alfred  Mosely,  of  England, 
brought  to  this  country  a  few  weeks  ago  a  delegation 
of  over  twenty  men  representing  the  different  trade 
organizations  of  England,  to  study  conditions,  to 
meet  and  know  those  who  are  laboring  in  the  vine- 
yard on  this  side.  He  has  made  trips  through  the 
West  and  studied  all  these  conditions  from  the  stand- 
point of  an  Englishman.  I  know  that  you  will  all 
be  glad  to  hear  from  him  this  morning.  I  have  the 
pleasure  of  presenting  Mr.  Alfred  Mosely.  (Ap- 
plause.) 

MR.  ALFRED  MOSELY:  Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentle- 
men— It  gives  me  great-  pleasure  to  have  the  oppor- 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  5 

tunity  of  saying  a  few  words  to  you  to-day,  because  I 
feel  that  in  the  work  of  the  Civic  Federation  there 
is  the  possibility  of  great  good  to  the  workers,  not 
only  of  the  United  States,  but  of  the  world.  Perhaps 
it  would  be  more  modest  on  my  part  as  a  stranger 
among  you  to  be  a  listener  rather  than  a  speaker, 
but  I  have  been  requested  to  say  a  few  words,  be- 
cause the  gentlemen  who  have  honored  me  by  accom- 
panying me  to  this  side  of  the  water  have  aroused  a 
great  deal  of  interest  throughout  the  country,  and 
it  may  perhaps  be  of  interest  to  you  to  hear  what  they 
have  seen,  and  how  I,  from  my  standpoint,  view  the 
situation  here. 

What  led  me  to  make  this  trip  ?  It  has  been  asked 
all  over  the  country,  and  I  will  tell  you.  I  am  a 
colonial,  English  born,  but  I  have  spent  the  greater 
part  of  my  life  in  the  British  Colonies,  principally 
South  Africa.  I  was  there  interested  in  mining.  We 
mined  for  years,  in  our  diamond  mines  especially, 
with  a  variety  of  English  engineers,  but  we  made  no 
progress.  Diggers  came  and  went,  some  held  on 
by  the  skin  of  their  teeth  and  others  made  a  little 
money,  but  the  great  bulk  failed.  Companies  were 
formed  and  they  in  turn,  one  after  the  other,  had  to 
close  down,  until  an  American  engineer  called  Gar- 
diner Williams  arrived  upon  the  scene.  He  was 
followed  by  a  large  number  of  engineers  and  others, 
and  it  is  to  the  American  engineer  that  we  owe  the 
success,  all  the  success,  of  South  Africa.  The  mining 
propositions  have  been  put  on  a  sound  basis  in  South 
Africa,  not  by  the  English  engineer  in  the  first  place- 
he  may  have  learned  afterwards — but  primarily  by 


6  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

the  American.  I  was  astonished  by  their  methods 
and  I  made  up  my  mind  it  was  necessary,  as  one  who 
studies  economics,  to  visit  the  country  that  had  pro- 
duced such  men,  who  had  been  able  to  show  us  the 
way,  when  we  thought  that  we  led  the  world.  Five 
years  ago  I  came  here  and  went  through  the  country, 
and  I  became  convinced  that  your  methods,  your 
general  mode  of  handling  business  propositions,  was 
far  ahead  of  our  own  in  the  Old  Country.  We  who 
had  led  the  van  of  the  world  for  many  years  had 
become  somewhat  rusty.  We  were  in  the  position  of 
a  man  who  had  eaten  a  good  dinner  and  had  set 
down  to  smoke  a  good  cigar,  away  from  the  rest  of 
the  world.  We  know  to-day  that  such  a  position  is 
dangerous;  it  does  not  make  for  progress.  But  it 
is  the  natural  result  of  too  much  prosperity. 

I  went  back  to  England  five  years  ago  with  the  in- 
formation, to  my  friends  and  to  the  public,  that  I 
thought  things  were  progressing  in  the  United  States 
at  a  speed  that  we  ourselves  did  not  realize,  and  I 
set  about  the  work  which,  I  am  happy  to  say,  we 
have  brought  so  far  to  a  successful  issue.  It  was 
useless  for  me  to  invite  the  delegates  of  the  trades 
unions  to  accompany  me  here  unless  I  had  the  sym- 
pathy of  the  American  manufacturers  and  the  people, 
and  accordingly  I  came  to  this  country  some  six 
months  ago  with  letters  of  introduction  from  Am- 
bassador Choate  to  the  most  influential  commercial 
and  industrial  gentlemen  of  the  United  States,  with 
a  view  of  ascertaining  whether  such  a  delegation  as  I 
wished  to  bring  would  be  acceptable  to  the  American 
people  as  a  whole,  and  whether  the  manufacturers 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  7 

would  be  prepared  to  open  their  doors  to  us,  that 
we  might  view  what  they  had  to  show.  It  gives  me 
great  pleasure  to  say  that  upon  that  trip,  as  upon 
the  present  one,  I  found  the  warm  hand  of  welcome 
held  out — the  heartiest  hand  of  welcome  it  was  pos- 
sible to  imagine.  Everyone  was  interested;  every- 
one wished  to  help  us  to  study  and  learn  what  we 
had  come  here  to  see,  and  everyone  extended  to  us 
the  warmest  welcome. 

This  attitude,  I  must  own,  astonishes  me,  and  I 
am  filled  with  admiration  for  a  people  who  can  be  so 
broad  as  to  extend  the  knowledge  of  themselves  to 
others  from  another  country.  I  went  back  to  Eng- 
land and  issued  my  invitations  to  the  various  trades 
unions  representing  the  principal  industries  of  the 
United  Kingdom.  The  consequence  was  twenty- 
three  gentlemen  accepted,  all  but  one  of  those  I  had 
asked,  and  they  have  accompanied  me  here  and  have 
been  busy  for  the  last  six  weeks  going  over  this  great 
country.  We  have  visited  Schenectady,  Niagara, 
Buffalo,  Cleveland,  Chicago,  Dayton,  Pittsburg, 
Washington,  Philadelphia,  New  York,  and  a  variety 
of  other  places,  largely  in  the  East,  Boston  and  all 
around  the  New  England  States,  and  I  am  sure  that 
these  gentlemen  are  now  primed  with  a  mass  of  in- 
formation which  they  will  take  home  to  the  Old 
Country,  and  which  I  feel  sure  can  only  be  conducive 
of  good  to  the  workmen  at  home  and  to  the  manu- 
facturers. 

We  have  been  received  everywhere,  as  I  have  just 
now  said,  with  open  arms,  with  the  greatest  of  hos- 
pitality, and  with  the  very  kindest  of  feeling,  and  I 


8  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

feel  that  I  owe  to  the  American  people  a  great  debt 
of  gratitude  for  all  that  they  have  allowed  us  to  ac- 
quire in  the  way  of  knowledge,  so  freely. 

In  our  trip  through  the  country  it  is,  perhaps, 
hardly  for  me  to  criticise,  but  I  feel  that  as  a  free 
lance — and  I  am  a  free  lance  because  I  am  neither 
an  employee  or  an  employer  of  labor — I  may  safely 
criticise  what  we  have  seen,  without,  perhaps,  treading 
upon  the  toes  of  those  gentlemen  who  are  going  to 
make  reports  to  their  various  trades  unions  on  their 
return.  There  have  been  many  points  that  have 
struck  me,  and  I  think  have  struck  the  delegates 
with  equal  force,  as  to  the  difference  of  conditions 
between  the  Old  Country  and  the  United  States. 
One  is  the  general  adoption  in  the  United  States  of 
piece  work,  with  the  result  that  better  wages  are 
earned,  I  believe,  here — infinitely  better  wages  than 
we  pay  on  the  other  side.  Why  is  it  that  the  work- 
men in  America  can  earn  so  much  better  wages  and 
the  manufacturers  can  make  large  profits,  and  can 
yet  compete  in  the  world's  markets,  with  their  prod- 
ucts ?  It  is  a  very  important  question  for  the  dele- 
gates to  have  to  answer.  I  think  it  lies  largely  in 
the  system  of  piece-work,  which  the  American  manu- 
facturer views  from  a  broader  standpoint  than  the 
English  operator.  He  says:  "Earn,  gentlemen,  all 
you  can.  We  will  set  a  price,  a  fair  price,  and  the 
more  money  you  earn  as  workmen  the  better  we  are 
pleased.  You  are  taking  up  a  certain  portion  of 
space  in  our  factory ;  that  portion  of  space  represents 
capital,  because  the  fixed  charges  are  the  same 
whether  you  are  doing  much  or  little;  therefore,  the 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  9 

more  work  you  perform  the  better  it  is  for  you  and 
the  better  it  is  for  me."  In  England  I  do  not  think 
the  manufacturers  there  have  adopted  that  attitude. 
They  say  that  a  British  workman  is  entitled  to  earn 
about  such  and  such  an  amount,  and  if  through  his 
energy  and  his  enterprise  he  succeeds  in  earning  larger 
wages,  the  manufacturers  begin  to  say:  "These  men 
are  earning  too  much.  Good  gracious  me,  this  sum 
of  money  is  hardly  fitted  to  their  position.  We  must 
cut  the  price."  Accordingly,  the  price  is  cut,  and 
that  system  has  gone  on  for  generations,  with  the 
result  that  heart  is  taken  out  of  the  men  and  they 
do  not  to-day,  I  believe,  put  forth  their  best  energies, 
because  they  feel — and  rightly  feel,  as  I  should  if  I 
were  in  their  place — that  their  treatment  has  not 
been  generous. 

Another  point  that  I  think  will  have  struck  my 
delegates  is  this:  The  encouragement  that  is  offered 
by  the  manufacturers  of  this  country  to  the  brains 
and  the  initiative  of  the  workmen.  They  say  to  the 
workmen:  "Tell  us  all  you  know.  Do  you  see  any- 
thing that  you  think  can  be  improved?  If  so,  send 
in  those  improvements  to  us  and  we  will  recognize 
them  by  payment,  either  by  a  premium  or  by  giving 
you  a  share  in  the  saving  that  you  have  enabled  us 
to  -effect,  or  by  promotion,  or  by  some  other  form 
of  remuneration  equally  satisfactory."  The  result  is 
that  they  have  a  multiplicity  of  brains  continually 
working,  seeking  to  improve  the  methods  of  manu- 
facture, seeking  to  give  the  manufacturers  the  benefit 
of  their  experience,  and  only  the  man  who  is  working 
daily  at  the  machines,  and  who  is  continually  in  touch 


I0  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

with  the  practical  part  of  the  business,  really  sees 
what  is  going  on  and  has  the  opportunity  of  improv- 
ing the  methods  of  manufacture.  The  man  sitting 
in  his  counting-house  as  administrator  cannot  im- 
prove. It  is  the  mass  of  the  workmen  that  one  must 
look  to  for  suggestions  and  inventions.  The  Ameri- 
can manufacturer  has  recognized  that  and  encourages 
the  initiative  of  the  men  and  rewards  it.  In  England, 
I  am  sorry  to  say,  I  do  not  think  our  manufacturers 
have  taken  that  broad-minded  view.  They  stand  in 
the  position  of  saying:  "We  know  our  business; 
we  have  nothing  to  learn;  we  require  you  there  to 
do  your  work;  do  as  you  are  told.  We  ask  nothing 
more."  If  any  man  thinks  an  improvement  should 
be  suggested  in  any  point — and  I  have  no  doubt 
they  continually  see  them — he  goes  to  the  foreman, 
possibly  with  this  result — usually  he  does  not  get  as 
far  as  the  master,  what  you  call  here  the  operator — 
we  call  them  masters  in  England — he  does  not  get  so 
far,  but  he  may  if  he  has  a  good  deal  of  courage  get 
as  far  as  the  foreman.  The  foreman  says:  "Are  you 
running  this  business  or  am  I?  Do  you  want  to 
teach  me  my  work,  because  if  so  you  had  better  put 
on  your  coat  and  go."  That  is  the  attitude — largely 
the  attitude,  almost  entirely  the  attitude — of  the 
manufacturer  in  England  to  all  who  make  a  sugges- 
tion. 

There  is  another  point  that  also  militates  against 
the  initiative  of  the  workmen,  and  that  is  the  jealousy 
of  the  foreman.  The  foreman  feels  that  if  Tom, 
Dick  or  Harry  is  going  to  make  the  suggestion,  his 
position  is  somewhat  in  jeopardy;  that  if  Tom,  Dick 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  n 

and  Harry  show  themselves  to  be  so  very  much 
smarter  men  than  the  foreman,  he  may  himself  have- 
to  go,  and  Tom,  Dick  and  Harry  be  put  in  his  place. 
The  consequence  is  that  the  man  is  smothered, 
things  are  made  too  warm  for  him;  he  leaves.  And 
it  is  such  things,  the  impossibility  of  closer  touch  be- 
tween the  manufacturer  and  his  workmen,  the  want 
of  touch  that  you  yourselves  do  not  suffer  from  in 
this  country,  that  has  brought  about  a  state  of  crys- 
tallization, if  I  may  so  put  it,  between  the  manu- 
facturer and  his  employees.  It  is  a  bad  state  of 
things.  It  is  one,  I  think,  that  will  be  required  to 
be  altered  in  our  country  if  we  are  going  to  hold  our 
position  in  the  markets  of  the  world. 

Another  point  that  has  struck  me  casually — and 
I  must  tell  you,  gentlemen,  I  am  only  an  amateur 
— is  your  up-to-date  machinery.  You  are  con- 
tinually encouraging  your  men  to  invent,  and  you 
do  not  view  your  machinery  as  part  of  your  capital 
that  must  be  kept  there  indefinitely.  Directly 
there  is  something  better  you  are  ready  to  throw 
your  machinery  on  the  scrap  heap  and  introduce  that 
something  better,  because  it  makes  for  cheapness 
of  production,  and  for  higher  wages.  Consequently 
when  the  men  are  making  higher  wages  a  larger 
amount  of  profit  is  going  into  the  manufacturer's 
pocket. 

Machinery  I  believe  to  be  the  working  man's  best 
friend.  It  should  bring  to  him  a  larger  amount  of 
ease  from  his  daily  toil  and  sweat.  He  should  be 
able  to  accomplish  his  day's  work  with  greater  ease 
to  himself,  and  with  a  higher  rate  of  remuneration, 


12  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

and,  personally,  I  am  of  the  opinion  that  the  intro- 
duction of  labor-saving  machinery  into  all  factories 
should  be  welcomed,  heartily  welcomed,  by  the 
workman.  It  tends  to  lessen  the  cost  of  production, 
it  tends,  therefore,  to  create  a  market  without  which 
there  would  be  neither  capital  for  the  manufacturer 
nor  work  for  the  workpeople,  and  it  makes  the  lot 
of  the  workingman  easier  in  every  respect.  The 
workmen  in  England,  I  do  not  think  as  a  whole,  cer- 
tainly not  in  the  past,  have  not  welcomed  machinery 
in  the  same  way  as  the  men  in  the  United  States 
have.  But  they  must  awaken  to  the  fact  that 
machinery  has  come  to  stay  and  must  be  helped 
in  every  direction,  because  as  I  have  said,  it  is,  I 
think,  the  workingman 's  best  friend.  By  the  mod- 
ern machinery  that  you  have  introduced  in  the 
United  States  you  have  shown  the  world  that  it  is 
possible  to  manufacture  with  a  high  rate  of  wages 
and  yet  hold  the  markets  of  the  world  in  your  hands. 
And  in  England  both  the  manufacturers  and  the 
workingmen  must  recognize  that  that  is  a  large 
factor  in  the  future.  I  don't  think,  to  be  fair  to  the 
workingman,  that  it  is  altogether  his  fault.  I  think 
the  greater  proportion  of  fault  lies  with  the  manu- 
facturers themselves  in  England,  because  they  have 
been  slow  to  use  machinery,  and  they  have  been 
quite  prepared  to  keep  the  old  machinery  and  sweat 
out  of  the  workingman  the  work,  so  long  as  they  are 
able  to  produce  an  article  at  a  price  that  will  leave 
them  a  margin  of  profit.  But  those  days  are  passing. 
The  workmen  with  their  unions — and  I  am  in  favor 
of  unions  if  properly  run — are  teaching  the  men  that 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  13 

they  will  not  be  exploited  for  the  benefit  of  the 
master  in  the  Old  Country.  It  is  a  position  which  I 
myself  have  a  great  deal  of  sympathy  with,  because 
I  do  not  think  the  manufacturers  in  the  Old  Country 
have  viewed  the  interest  of  the  men  quite  on  the 
plane  that  the  American  manufacturers  have  here,  and 
if  we  are  going  to  hold  our  position  in  the  world  as  a 
manufacturing  country,  both  the  manufacturers 
and  the  workingmen  must  welcome  machinery,  and 
above  all,  must  run  that  machinery  at  its  highest 
possible  speed,  getting  the  very  greatest  results 
out  of  it.  I  find  here,  as  far  as  I  am  able  to  judge, 
as  an  amateur,  that  you  are  running  your  machinery 
at  a  greater  speed  than  we  are  in  England;  you  are 
getting  more  out  of  your  machinery,  you  are  using  a 
smaller  number  of  men  in  connection  with  those 
machines.  I  found  in  going  through  your  shops 
machines  being  run — six,  seven  and  eight,  by  one 
man.  I  do  not  think  the  workmen  in  England  run 
the  same  amount  of  machines  with  the  same  number 
of  men,  and  there  I  think  the  unions  are  largely  to 
blame.  I  do  not  blame  the  unions  altogether,  be- 
cause, as  I  have  just  now  said,  it  is  because  our  em- 
ployers do  not  recognize  the  merits  of  the  men  and 
their  title  to  a  higher  standard  and  to  the  higher 
wages,  that  they  themselves  have  protected  them- 
selves as  it  were,  by  not  perhaps  taking  the  very  best 
out  of  machinery.  It  is  a  fallacy,  and  one  that  will 
have  to  be  dropped  in  the  future.  But  the  working- 
men  will  require  to  know  what  is  their  position. 
They  ask,  "If  we  are  prepared  to  run  these  machines 
at  a  higher  speed,  so  as  to  produce  all  the  machinery 


I4  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

is  capable  of,  what  is  to  be  our  share?"  And  I 
think  they  have  a  right  to  come  to  an  understanding 
with  the  manufacturer  as  to  what  their  share  is  to  be. 

These  are  some  of  the  points  that  I  think  will  have 
to  be  fully  emphasized,  and  I  just  now  stated  it  is 
only  as  an  amateur  that  I  speak  these  things.  It 
strikes  me  as  a  point  that  will  have  to  be  viewed 
very  thoroughly  by  the  delegates  when  they  get  back 
to  their  own  country  in  the  reports  that  they  make, 
and  the  attitudes  that  the  unions  will  take,  altogether, 
in  this  great  problem  of  capital  and  labor. 

Again,  there  is  the  question  of  hours.  Hours  are 
a  very  important  point.  I  think  those  who  really 
have  the  workmen's  interest  at  heart  do  view  the 
question  of  shorter  hours  with  a  feeling  of  respect  and 
a  feeling  of  right  for  their  desire  to  have  some  time 
left  after  they  have  finished  their  labor  to  improve 
their  minds  and  to  devote  themselves  to  other  occu- 
pations. But  the  hours  of  labor  are  a  very  difficult 
problem.  There  is  more  than  one  view  to  be  taken 
of  it  in  the  United  States.  You  have  to  ask  your- 
selves, What  is  the  position  in  other  countries? 
Are  they  working  longer  hours?  Is  it  possible  to 
bring  them  into  line?  And  personally,  I  feel  that  if 
there  is  to  be  any  solution  to  the  hours  question,  it 
can  only  be  done  if  the  workingmen,  not  of  the 
United  States  alone,  but  of  the  whole  of  Europe,  are 
brought  into  line  and  prepared  to  adopt  a  policy 
whereby  we  shall  all  be  on  an  equal  footing.  It  is 
useless  for  the  United  States  to  seek  an  ideal  of  an 
eight-hour  day  if  Germany  is  going  to  work  ten.  It 
means  that  the  markets  of  the  world  will  be  glutted, 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  I5 

that  is  to  say  the  free  markets,  by  the  manufactures 
of  the  country  whose  work  is  longer  than  that  of  the 
United  States.  We  must  come  into  line  if  there  is  to 
be  any  real  progress  in  that,  and  these  gentlemen, 
Mr.  Gompers  and  Mr.  Mitchell,  who  represent  the 
workers  of  this  country,  I  appeal  to  them  as  being  the 
problem  that  they  themselves  must  look  into  as  to 
whether  you  will  not  injure  the  progress  of  this  coun- 
try if  you  are  going  to  try  and  introduce  shorter 
hours  here  than  are  adopted  in  the  Old  Country.  It  is 
true  you  can  adopt  that  policy  if  you  are  prepared 
to  manufacture  only  for  the  United  States.  But  I 
think  the  United  States  to-day — and  I  think  pretty 
well  everyone  will  agree  with  me  in  this  room — has 
got  beyond  that  point.  With  the  resources  you  have 
— and  the  resources  of  the  United  States,  I  think, 
are  larger  than  anybody  can  appreciate  who  has  not 
been  in  this  country — your  natural  position  is  to 
make  not  only  for  yourselves,  but  to  manufacture 
largely  for  the  world.  And  when  you  come  to  face 
that  problem,  there  are  a  great  many  things  to  be 
looked  at  outside  of  the  United  States. 

We  hear  a  great  deal  of  restriction  of  output,  boy- 
cott, unions,  free  labor,  etc.  Restriction  of  output 
is  to  my  mind  a  fallacy  the  world  over.  It  cannot  be 
encouraged,  it  cannot  be  permitted.  I  do  not  think 
the  intelligent  workmen  of  any  part  of  the  world  en- 
courage it.  Our  workmen  who  have  been  here — the 
representatives,  rather,  of  the  workmen — deny  that 
there  is  any  restriction  of  output  in  the  Old  Country 
I  am  glad  to  hear  them  do  so.  They  deny  that  there 
is  any  of  the  "go  slow"  plan.  I  am  delighted  they 


1 6  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

take  that  attitude.  It  makes  for  better  things.  But 
I  have  heard  it  said  that  a  man  must  be  protected 
against  himself.  Well,  gentlemen,  that  is  begging 
the  question.  That  is  putting  another  phrase  to 
exactly  the  same  principle.  There  can  be  no  restric- 
tion of  output  unless  you  are  going  to  bring  about  a 
state  of  things  that  will  mean  death  to  manufacture, 
death  to  the  workingmen,  and  death  to  the  country. 
A  man  must  be  encouraged.  A  man  must  do  his 
level  best  in  the  course  of  his  day's  work.  He  must 
be  prepared  to  put  forth  his  greatest  energy  and  he 
must  receive  remuneration  for  that  energy.  Boycott 
is  a  thing  I  think  that  does  not  appeal  to  any  one. 
Free  labor  is  a  sacred  proposition  that  must  be  pro- 
tected, not  only  by  the  workman,  but  by  everybody 
who  desires  freedom  in  this  country.  A  man  must  be 
free  to  sell  his  labor  to  whom  he  pleases,  whether  he 
belongs  to  the  unions  or  not.  I  myself  am  a  union 
man;  I  am  in  favor  of  unions;  I  have  shown  that 
by  the  people  that  I  have  brought  to  this  side  of  the 
water.  But  while  I  favor  unions,  I  do  not  favor  all 
that  trade  unionism  does.  There  must  be  a  perfect 
right  for  a  man  to  join  a  union  without  intimidation. 
He  must  be  interfered  with  by  no  one.  The  same 
applies  to  the  free  laborer  who  wishes  to  sell  his  prod- 
uce, his  hand  work,  to  any  manufacturer.  He  must 
be  free  to  do  so  unhindered,  unincumbered  in  every 
shape  and  form,  and  were  I  a  manufacturer,  if  any 
attempt  was  made  to  interfere  with  that  freedom 
in  my  factory  I  would  fight  it  to  the  bitter  end. 
I  would  close  my  factory  rather  than  submit  to  it. 
It  is  an  important  question  that  one  has  to  consider, 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  17 

this  freedom,  because  unless  we  have  freedom  on  both 
sides,  both  in  unionism  and  in  free  labor,  there  can 
be  no  progress  for  any  country.  But  while  unionism 
is  a  point  that  I  am  very  much  in  sympathy  with, 
there  are  many  things  in  connection  with  it  that  re- 
quire the  consideration  of  the  labor  leaders.  They 
must  be  free  to  organize,  because,  I  think 
organized  labor  is  good  for  the  world.  I  think 
the  organization  of  capital  equally  good  for  the 
masses.  Persv_^ally,  I  would  rather  have  to  plead 
with  organized  capital  on  one  side  and  organized 
labor  on  the  other,  than  with  a  scattered  mass  of 
small  manufacturers  seeking  to  cut  one  another's 
throats  in  an  unhealthy  competition,  and  labor,  unled, 
undisciplined  and  under-paid,  such  as  we  have  seen 
it  in  England  in  the  past  and  as  we  should  see  it 
to-day,  were  it  not  for  the  power  of  the  unions,  which, 
I  think,  as  a  whole  have  done  a  great  deal  of  good. 

But  there  are  other  points  with  regard  to  the  labor 
unions,  and  I  address  myself  now  more  particularly 
to  Mr.  Gompers  and  Mr.  Mitchell,  who  represent  the 
labor  of  this  country,  and  that  is  that  they  must 
look  beyond  the  question  of  consumption  in  consid- 
ering the  reduction  of  the  hours  of  labor.  If  you 
intend  to  cultivate  and  keep  the  open  markets  of  the 
world,  there  is  the  business  part  of  it  which  requires 
investigation — the  rates  of  freights,  the  rate  of  money 
exchange,  the  gold  premiums  in  other  countries,  and 
a  thousand  and  one  things  which  largely  affect  the 
possibility  of  your  being  able  to  sell  your  goods  in 
the  markets  of  the  world.  It  is  an  important  matter, 
one  entirely  apart  from  the  question  of  the  hours 


i8  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

of  labor,  and  the  speed  of  machinery  and  the  wages 
of  the  men.  There  I  think  a  strong  and  powerful 
responsibility  rests  upon  your  manufacturers.  You 
cannot  expect  these  gentlemen  if  they  are  sitting  here 
holding  the  strings  of  labor  and  the  variety  of  prob- 
lems which  they  have  to  face  every  day — you  cannot 
expect  them  to  look  at  these  problems  outside  unless 
you.  give  them  an  opportunity  of  doing  so.  You 
must  choose  from  among  the  workingmen — and 
there  are  plenty  of  workingmen  in  this  country  with 
plenty  of  brains — you  must  choose  your  best  men; 
you  must  help  them,  you  must  encourage  them,  you 
must  give  them  the  opportunity  of  going  abroad 
in  the  same  way  that  I  have  brought  my  men  here 
to  study  these  questions.  This  Civic  Federation, 
with  its  large  organization  of  manufacturers,  should 
and  will  have  an  opportunity  of  enlightening  those 
who  seek  enlightenment  upon  those  points. 

Trusts  have  been  very  much  abused  in  this  country, 
from  the  standpoint  of  those  who  I  think  have 
not  sufficiently  looked  into  the  proposition.  Per- 
sonally I  do  not  view  trusts  with  any  distrust.  I 
think  they  are  making  for  a  better  state  of  things, 
both  for  the  manufacturer  and  the  workingman. 
The  small  manufacturer  cannot  give  conditions  to 
the  workingman  such  as  a  large  manufacturer  with 
unlimited  capital  and  unlimited  organization  has 
at  his  command,  and  I  believe  that  the  workingmen 
of  this  country  will  study  their  best  interests  if  they 
help  the  trusts.  They  are  not  in  my  opinion  any 
menace  to  the  country.  They  may  tend  to  raise 
prices  a  little.  If  they  do,  the  workingman  will 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  19 

claim  his  share  and  will  get  it.  We  have  seen  only 
within  the  last  few  days  since  I  have  been  in  this 
country  how  some  of  the  railroad  companies  have 
stepped  forward  and  offered  higher  wages,  unasked 
by  their  men.  That  is  a  principle  that  I  think  will 
be  followed  up,  and  if  they  do  not  offer  the  working- 
men  will  ask  and  will  receive  higher  wages,  because  it 
is  their  due,  as  the  prosperity  of  the  country  increases. 

These  trusts  will  largely  work  their  own  salvation 
for  good  or  bad.  We  have,  for  instance,  the  Oil 
Trust.  It  is  one  of  the  first  trusts,  and  I  think  the 
most  powerful,  perhaps,  in  the  country.  What  has 
been  the  effect  of  it?  As  far  as  I  have  been  able 
to  ascertain  we  get  better  and  cheaper  oil  to-day 
under  the  trust  than  we  did  before,  and  that  trust 
has  accumulated  a  large  capital,  which  capital  is 
again  employed  in  a  variety  of  industries  throughout 
the  country  to  extend  and  improve  this  great  empire, 
and  has  helped  build  up  many  of  the  large  industries 
of  to-day,  which  employ  a  very  large  amount  of  labor. 
If  on  the  other  hand  the  trusts  abuse  their  position 
and  give  the  public  a  worse  article  at  a  higher  price, 
the  evil  will  work  its  own  cure.  No  corporation  can, 
for  any  length  of  time,  sell  its  article  at  a  fictitious 
price.  It  is  bound  to  bring  in  competition,  and  that 
competition  will  break  down  of  its  own  weight  the 
corporation  that  seeks  to  enslave  you  and  make  you 
pay  an  unfair  price  for  your  goods. 

Capital  and  labor  are  partners,  and  the  sooner  both 
capital  and  labor  of  all  grades  really  realize  that 
proposition,  the  better  for  the  community  at  large. 
They  are  partners  just  as  much  as  man  and  wife,  and 


20  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

if  you  attempt  to  divorce  them  it  brings  trouble  and 
breaks  up  happy  homes.  The  same  applies  to  the 
workman,  representing,  as  he  does,  his  share  of  labor, 
and  the  manufacturer,  who  represents  capital.  They 
are  partners,  and  you  cannot  divorce  them.  The 
only  question  that  arises  is  how  ar3  they  to  divide 
the  dollar  which  is  being  earned  partially  by  capital 
on  one  side,  and  by  labor  on  the  other;  that  is  the 
problem  of  the  hour.  The  world  has  seen  struggles 
going  on  for  a  share  of  that  dollar.  In  England,  in 
the  past,  I  do  not  think  labor  has  received  its  fair 
share,  its  fair  wage.  Capital  has  relegated  to  itself 
more  than  its  share  and  trades  unionism  has  been  a 
very  powerful  factor  in  extorting,  I  may  say, 
because  it  has  been  largely  extorting,  in  the  past, 
its  fair  share  of  the  result  of  its  labors.  I  am 
sorry  to  have  to  use  that  expression,  extorting,  but 
I  feel  that,  perhaps,  strong  as  it  is,  it  is  not  too  strong 
for  the  position  as  it  was  in  England — not  perhaps 
to-day,  but  in  the  past — when  labor  was  miserably 
underpaid. 

But,  as  I  have  said,  there  is  this  dollar  to  divide 
and  how  can  it  be  divided  equitably?  We  see  this 
change  that  has  come  over  the  world;  it  is  a  change 
that  is  taking  place  daily  with  the  large  corporations 
and  trusts.  With  these  which  are  starting,  which 
have  not  yet  been  incorporated,  I  cannot  see  why  a 
sum  of  money  in  the  shape  of  stock  should  not  be 
placed  on  one  side  to  represent  labor.  Say,  for 
argument's  sake,  there  is  a  corporation  being  formed 
with  one  hundred  millions  of  dollars ;  why  could  you 
not  take  thirty,  forty,  fifty,  sixty — I  don't  pretend 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  2I 

to  fix  the  amount — millions  of  dollars  and  place  it  on 
one  side,  and  say  that  represents  labor,  while  the 
other  side  represents  capital?  The  labor  side  of  it 
shall  be  banked  in  trust  for  the  workingman, 
and  that  shall  be  distributed  at  the  end  of  the  year 
pro  rat  a,  according  to  the  wages  that  the  men  are 
earning.  It  would  simplify  the  matter.  It  would 
give  the  workingman  a  direct  interest  in  the  work 
that  is  going  on,  and  without  that  interest,  and  unless 
you  have  the  hearts  of  your  workingmen  with  you, 
there  can  be  no  real  solid  progress  with  regard  to  your 
manufactures.  You  cannot  have  workingmen  who 
are  sullenly  doing  their  day's  work,  feeling  that  they 
have  nothing  to  live  for  when  their  day's  work  is 
finished.  They  must  be  partners,  truly,  in  every 
sense  of  the  word. 

To  these  other  corporations  that  have  their  con- 
cerns in  operation  I  must  confess  I  have  my  own  ideal. 
I  do  not  say  that  it  is  impossible  to-day,  but  I  think 
it  may  become  possible  in  the  future.  That  ideal 
is  this — perhaps  it  may  not  come  in  my  lifetime,  but 
it  is  one  towards  which  we  should  all  struggle — a 
minimum  wage  to  the  men;  interest  on  capital;  a 
fund  for  the  expansion  of  your  works,  the  same  as 
though  you  were  conducting  your  business  on  every- 
day principles,  and  a  fund  for  depreciation  and  the 
replacing  of  your  machinery ;  old  age  pensions  for  the 
men;  and  then  the  balance  equally  divided.  If 
one  could  arrive  at  such  an  ideal,  it  would,  I  think, 
make  the  men  think  that  they  were  partners  indeed. 
They  would  be  receiving  their  full  share  of  the  work 
on  one  side;  capital  would  be  receiving  its  interest 


22  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

and  a  share  of  the  profits  on  the  other.  It  is  an 
ideal  to-day,  I  know.  I  am  speaking  ahead  of  the 
times,  but  unless  both  employers  and  employees  can 
arrive  at  some  basis  of  partnership,  things  cannot 
go  on  indefinitely.  The  world  is  becoming  educated. 
The  masses  are  feeling  that  they  have  a  right,  a  just 
right,  to  a  share  of  the  profits.  The  whole  question 
is,  How  can  that  be  arrived  at  without  trouble, 
without  friction. 

The  Civic  Federation  has  undertaken  a  great  work, 
a  work  that  I  think  the  whole  of  the  people  of  the 
United  States  should  be  in  sympathy  with.  It 
is  attempting  logically  to  bring  capital  and  labor 
into  closer  touch,  to  discuss  the  various  problems 
that  affect  both  sides,  calmly  and  dispassionately. 
It  is  seeking  to  bring  about  arbitration  and  concilia- 
tion. Arbitration  and  conciliation  have  been  subjects 
that  attracted  our  attention  in  England  for  a  number 
of  years,  and  I  venture  to  think  that  we  have  got  ahead 
of  you  in  that  respect.  We  are  older,  and  we  have  got 
our  boards  of  arbitration  and  conciliation — the  Cham- 
ber of  Commerce,  the  Board  of  Trade,  and  the  various 
trades  organizations  who  have  their  own  joint  boards 
of  employers  and  employees.  But  the  Civic  Feder- 
ation of  this  country  has  taken  up  one  point  that 
appeals  to  me  very  strongly,  and  I  think  it  has 
appealed  with  equal  force  to  the  whole  of  my  dele- 
gates. What  it  says  is  this:  "  Do  not  wait  until  your 
building  is  on  fire  and  blazing.  All  the  water  that 
you  can  pump  on  it  from  every  engine  you  can  gather 
together  in  New  York  will  not  extinguish  it,  or  if  it 
does,  it  leaves  it  a  wreck.  Step  in  with  your  one 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  23 

bucket  of  water,  which  you  can  throw  upon  the 
flames  immediately  they  show  any  signs  of  breaking 
out,  and  you  will  be  effective. "  In  other  words,  I 
say  that  the  work  of  the  Civic  Federation  in  bringing 
capital  and  labor  together  at  a  round  table,  to  speak 
of  their  conditions  directly  there,  is  a  great  work 
that  must  have  an  everlasting  influence  upon  this 
great  problem  of  capital  and  labor.  I  believe  my 
delegates  have  been  very  much  struck  with  this  par- 
ticular attitude  of  the  Civic  Federation,  and  those 
who  were  here  in  New  York  a  few  days  ago  signed  a 
declaration  in  favor  of  it,  asking  that  a  similar  institu- 
tion might,  if  possible,  be  introduced  into  Great  Britain, 
and  saying  that  on  their  return  to  their  own  societies, 
when  they  would  issue  their  report,  they  intended  to 
lay  special  stress  upon  this  work,  which  they  thought 
was  making  for  peace  and  good. 

I  can  only  say  in  regard  to  this  work  of  the  Civic 
Federation  I  am  heartily  in  sympathy  with  it ,  because 
it  is  a  benefit  to  humanity  and  makes  for  a  better 
condition  as  between  labor  and  capital.  The  best 
men  of  this  country  have  undertaken  that  work,  and 
the  responsibility  rests  with  them  to  see  it  through, 
and  to  cultivate  and  seek  all  these  vast  influences 
that  they  can  bring  to  bear.  An  equal  responsi- 
bility rests  with  those  who  represent  labor,  to  see  that 
they  are  all  brought  into  line  to  support  this  organiza- 
tion, because  without  something  of  this  description 
capital  and  labor  will  ever  be  at  war. 

I  wish  it  every  success;  I  believe  it  is  to  be  a  nu- 
cleus in  making  for  better  times  and  conditions.  I 
have  also  to  thank  the  Civic  Federation,  and  I  thank 


24  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

them  from  the  bottom  of  my  heart,  for  the  assistance 
they  have  given  to  my  commission.  When  I  was  in- 
troduced to  them,  six  manufacturers  and  Senator 
Hanna  and  others,  they  stepped  out  and  said:  "Mr. 
Mosely,  you  bring  your  men  and  we  will  co-operate 
with  them.  We  have  got  the  situation  in  hand,  both 
capital  and  labor.  Mr.  Gompers  and  Mr.  Mitchell, 
representing  labor,  will  give  you  every  assistance; 
we  who  represent  capital  will  influence  manufacturers 
to  open  their  doors,  and  I  think  you  will  be  given 
an  opportunity  of  seeing  everything."  That  promise 
has  been  more  than  realized.  Every  door  has  been 
held  open  by  the  manufacturers  in  the  most  liberal 
way.  The  gentlemen  who  represent  labor  on  the 
other  side,  Mr.  Gompers,  who  is  at  the  head  of  the 
American  Federation  of  Labor,  placed  in  every  town 
we  have  visited  men  connected  with  all  the  businesses 
with  which  my  people  are  connected,  to  take  my  men 
in  hand  and  show  them  all  around ;  to  take  them  to  the 
factories  and  explain  to  them  the  conditions  of  the 
workingmen,  the  wages  they  are  earning,  and  the 
conditions  under  which  they  are  living,  and  I  be- 
lieve my  people  will  go  back  with  a  big,  broad  con- 
ception of  what  this  country  is  doing  for  the  laboring 
people. 

Mr.  Gompers,  on  behalf  of  the  gentlemen  who  are 
with  me,  will  you  allow  me  to  thank  you  and  Mr. 
Mitchell  for  the  great  service  which  you  have  rendered 
to  the  workers  on  this  side?  And  Senator  Hanna, 
again,  as  representing  the  manufacturers,  will  you 
please  accept  my  sincere  thanks  for  the  very  liberal 
way  in  which  the  people  of  this  country  have  opened 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE  25 

the  doors  to  my  delegation  as  a  whole?     Gentlemen, 
allow  me  to  thank  you.     (Applause.) 

THE  CHAIRMAN  :  I  am  very  sure  that  it  is  our  desire 
to  return  the  compliment  and  thank  the  gentleman 
for  his  very  wise  and  unselfish  dissertation  upon  this 
great  question.  Before  we  adjourn  for  the  afternoon, 
I  want  to  hear  from  one  of  the  gentlemen  representing 
the  workingmen  of  England.  I  will  now  introduce 
Mr.  Walls,  the  general  secretary  of  the  Blast  Furnace- 
men's  Association. 

MR.  P.  WALLS:  Senator  Hanna  and  Gentlemen — 
After  the  exhaustive  and,  I  think,  fairly  outspoken 
words  of  Mr.  Mosely,  which,  although  I  believe  were 
justified,  occupied  a  considerable  amount  of  your 
valuable  time,  I  will  be  exceedingly  brief.  I  have 
two  reasons  for  being  so.  One  is  that  I  have  no  desire 
to  anticipate  my  report  that  I  am  expected  to  make 
when  I  return  to  England;  and  another  is,  that  I 
know  your  time  is  too  valuable  for  me  to  occupy 
more  than  a  few  minutes. 

We  have  been  exceedingly  pleased  with  the  re- 
ception that  we  have  received  everywhere.  We  have 
been  very  favorably  impressed  with  your  immense 
country,  your  immense  natural  resources,  your  im- 
mense riches,  and  I  might  add,  your  immense  ma- 
chinery— very  much  impressed,  indeed.  Still,  per- 
haps, it  would  be  possible  to  exaggerate  the  differences 
between  this  and  the  Old  Country  in  many  instances. 

They  are  not  nearly  so  large  as  seem  to  loom  up  in 
the  minds  of- — well,  might  I  say,  the  pressmen  of  the 
United  States.  (Laughter  and  applause.)  Not  near- 


26  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

ly  so  large  as  I  believe  they  seem  to  many  of  those 
in  the  States  with  whom  we  have  come  in  contact,  but 
I  think  we  realize  that  there  is  a  difference ;  that  we 
know  our  people  have  had  difficulties.  All  their 
works  are  much  older.  All  yours  are  new,  and  in 
laying  down  a  new  plant  it  is  always  to  be  expected 
that  you  will  adopt  the  most  up-to-date  machinery. 
Any  man  understands,  I  think,  we  are  getting  closer, 
and  as  to  the  matters  of  details  of  some  of  the  ques- 
tions mentioned,  as  to  the  matters  of  mining  ma- 
chines, I  would  like  to  remind,  well,  Mr.  Mosely,  that 
there  are  machines  and  machines.  (Laughter.) 
You  have  some  of  your  machines  that  can  practically 
mind  themselves,  while  some  of  ours  require  a  great 
deal  of  minding.  We  have  all  these  things  to  con- 
sider. 

We  were  impressed  also  with  the  question  of  the 
management  of  your  public  concerns.  After  thirty 
years  of  public  service  and  management  as  a  public 
workmen,  I  must  say  that  we  have  not  received  that 
encouragement  in  the  Old  Country.  If  a  man  under- 
takes to  offer  any  suggestions,  you  all  know  it  is  just 
possible  he  will  find  himself  on  the  way  to  some  other 
concern  looking  for  employment.  There  are,  while 
that  is  the  rule,  exceptions  to  the  rule.  There  is,  no 
doubt,  that  with  the  exceptions  of  the  great  leaders, 
that  that  is  the  rule. 

Now  with  reference  to  your  Civic  Federation.  We 
are  pleased  that  there  is  such  an  institution,  but  I 
would  like  to  remove  some  of  what  I  consider  a  delu- 
sion, in  that  matter,  so  far  as  we  are  concerned. 
There  seems  to  be  a  kind  of  belief  that  we  are  sadly 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


27 


in  need  of  such  an  institution.  Now,  I  admit,  sir, 
it  would  be  useful,  but  we  have  our  own  conciliation 
boards  and  our  own  joint  committees,  and  have  our 
employers  and  workingmen  sitting  on  them,  such  as 
a  board  of  trade,  which  meets  and  discusses  the  situa- 
tion. We  have  severe  troubles  at  times,  gentlemen; 
we  cannot  help  it,  when  there  is  a  lack  of  experience 
on  both  sides,  where  the  workman  is  probably  a 
little  impetuous  and  where  the  employer  has  a  little 
horror  as  to  the  workman's  disposition.  Where  that 
condition  exists  we  sometimes  experience  trouble. 
On  that  question  we  would  like  such  an  institution 
as  the  Civic  Federation.  We  have  had  many  people 
in  their  individual  capacity  who  have  filled  that  par- 
ticular. We  have  had  men,  members  of  the 
county  councils  and  others,  who  have  on  many  occa- 
sions managed  to  bring  together  the  contending  par- 
ties and  lead  to  an  amicable  conclusion  and  settle- 
ment. 

One  of  the  things,  sir,  that  I  admire  about  the 
Federation,  is  that  it  does  not  pretend  to  interfere 
with  anybody's  business.  The  moment  a  disinterest- 
ed party  who  does  not  understand  the  technicalities 
of  the  question  from  either  side  attempts  to  put  their 
finger  in  that  pie,  the  pie  is  spoiled.  (Applause.) 
Now  what  I  admire  in  the  Civic  Federation  is  that  it 
only  pretends  to  bring  the  contending  parties  to- 
gether, so  they  can  see  that  each  one  has  only  got  one 
head  and  that  they  are  not  the  monsters  which  each 
supposed  the  other  to  be,  and  that  there  is  right  on 
both  sides. 

I  beg  to  thank  the  American  employers  for  the  way 


28  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

they  have  thrown  open  their  gates  to  us  and  the  way 
that  they  have  opened  everything  to  us.  I  beg  also 
to  thank  the  American  workingmen  for  the  reception 
we  have  received  from  the  workingmen.  There  were 
no  jealousies  whatever;  we  were  all  friends  and  broth- 
ers, and  I  thank  you  in  this  audience  for  the  little 
time  you  have  given  me.  (Applause.) 
Adjourned. 

The  second  session  of  the  meeting  was  called  to 
order  by  SENATOR  HANNA  at  2:30  P.  M. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Gentlemen  of  the  committee,  we 
are  through  with  the  picturesque,  and  we  will  proceed 
now  with  business.  Mr.  Adams  has  telegraphed  that 
his  train  is  delayed  and  he  will  not  be  here  for  fifteen 
or  twenty  minutes.  Under  the  circumstances,  I  am 
going  to  take  the  responsibility  of  calling  upon 
people,  to  give  opportunity  for  an  exchange  of  ideas, 
and  I  now  call  upon  Archbishop  Ireland. 

ARCHBISHOP  JOHN  IRELAND:  Mr.  President  and 
Gentlemen — When  Senator  Hanna  speaks  I  obey. 
The  year  that  has  gone  by  has  confirmed  the  origi- 
nators of  the  Civic  Federation  in  their  conviction  that 
they  are  engaged  in  a  great  and  salutary  work,  that 
of  striving  to  bring  together,  face  to  face,  capital  and 
labor  so  that  the  one  shall  understand  the  other,  so 
that  the  one  shall  be  willing  to  perform  its  duty  toward 
the  other,  and  that  in  this  manner  industrial  peace 
may  reign  over  the  country.  Our  worthy  chair- 
man, you  will  remember,  stated  to  us  last  year  that 
deep  down  in  his  heart  he  felt  no  greater  work  could 
be  given  as  a  task  to  the  statesman  than  to  aid  in 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  2g 

leading  up  to  industrial  peace.  And  I  say  that  no 
greater  task  could  be  given  to  the  minister  of  Christ's 
Gospel  than  to  contribute  in  some  little  way  to  es- 
tablish this  peace. 

It  is  not  surprising  that  there  do  arise  between  cap- 
ital and  labor  disputes  and  collisions.  Humanity  is 
entering  into  a  new  period  of  life  and  of  development. 
All  developments,  all  growths,  whether  in  a  physical 
or  a  moral  body,  produce  feelings  of  uneasiness; 
there  is  the  sentiment  that  new  conditions  exist,  and 
that  the  moment  has  come  for  new  adjustments  and 
new  adaptabilities.  As  we  follow  the  history  of  in- 
dustrial movements  century  after  century,  we  see 
periodically  new  conditions  arising  and  efforts  made 
to  meet  them — often  amid  much  anxiety  and  much 
travail.  To-day  the  conditions  which  confront  us 
are  not  such  as  to  give  discouragement;  rather  they 
are  such  as  to  give  hope  and  comfort.  The  great  in- 
dustrial prosperity  marking  the  present  times  has 
come  largely  from  the  growth  of  the  human  mind. 
Men  have  gone  out  into  all  parts  of  the  world,  made 
discoveries  of  all  the  resources  of  nature,  and  pre- 
pared humanity  to  lay  hold  of  these  resources. 
Mind  has  grown  in  all  the  classes  of  society.  To-day 
the  workingman  is  a  thinking  being.  He  has  read; 
he  has  studied ;  he  knows  what  may  be  done ;  he  feels 
what  should  be  done.  Capital  in  its  ambition  to  de- 
velop the  resources  of  nature  to  their  highest  point, 
labor  in  its  ambition  to  secure  for  itself  a  just  and 
reasonable  proportion  of  the  wealth  that  is  being 
created,  come  somewhat  into  conflict.  One  asks, 
"Have  I  my  rights?"  The  other  answers,  "Have  I 


3o  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

mine5'  So  it  is  in  all  movements  in  the  life  of  hu- 
manity that  have  made  for  the  greatness  of  humanity. 
What  seems  at  present  to  threaten  the  public  peace, 
and  even  to  delay  the  march  of  prosperity,  is  but  a 
precursory  sign  of  greater  social  happiness,  and  of 
greater  social  wealth.  There  is  no  doubt  but  that 
when  the  difficulties  of  the  moment  have  settled, 
society  at  large  will  be  far  happier  and  far  more 
prosperous.  Nor  are  we  to  imagine  that  solutions 
are  ready  made,  and  that  at  a  given  moment  we  can 
just  exactly  say  what  measures  must  be  taken  to 
remedy  immediate  ills.  The  human  mind  is  not  able 
at  once  to  grasp  all  the  factors  in  a  problem;  it  is 
not  able  to  understand  at  once  all  the  circumstances 
which  surround  that  problem.  Hence,  time  is 
necessary.  It  is  not  at  one  meeting ,  it  is  not  in  one 
year,  that  all  the  industrial  problems  will  be  solved. 
We  must  be  patient.  At  the  same  time  we  must  feel 
sure  that  solutions  are  coming.  Humanity  has  suffi- 
cient mind  and  sufficient  good  will  to  settle  all 
matters  in  which  it  is  vitally  interested.  Its  history, 
century  after  century,  shows  very  plainly  that  what- 
ever the  conflict  of  the  moment,  peace  and  victory 
did  follow.  Not  only  must  we  have  confidence  in 
humanity  itself;  we  must  have  confidence  in  the 
All-ruling  Providence  which  has  placed  humanity 
upon  this  earth,  and  which  directs  it  towards  its 
ultimate  goal. 

And  so  we  enter  hopefully  into  the  discussion  of 
relations  between  capital  and  labor.  This  is  the 
immediate  purpose  of  the  Civic  Federation.  Men 
come  together,  representing  the  different  classes  of 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  31 

society,  employers  and  employees  as  well  as  what  is 
called  the  general  public,  and  they  say:  ''Let  us  see 
what  is  to  be  done."  This  is  much:  for  earnest 
seeking  is  half  the  finding. 

The  manner  of  proceeding  of  the  Civic  Federation 
commends  it  to  us.  It  would  not  do  to  have  the 
capitalists  by  themselves.  It  would  not  do  to  have 
laborers  by  themselves,  for  the  simple  reason  that 
one  party,  not  knowing  the  mind  of  the  other,  would 
be  likely  to  be  one-sided  in  its  conclusions,  more  or 
less  biassed  by  self-interest  and  prejudice.  Bring 
both  classes  together;  let  them  meet  frequently.  If 
anything  more  were  to  be  desired  in  the  methods  of 
the  Civic  Federation,  it  would  be  that  its  members 
would  come  more  frequently  together.  The  world  is 
moving  on  at  such  a  rapid  pace,  industrialism  is  tak- 
ing such  terrific  strides,  that  it  is  scarcely  enough  to 
hold  one  meeting  a  year  to  ask  what  may  be  done, 
what  thoughts  may  be  put  out  before  the  country. 
But  however  often  or  however  seldom  the  members 
meet,  certainly  the  method  chosen  is  a  proper  one, 
that  of  bringing  representatives  of  the  different 
classes  together.  It  is  the  test  of  a  civilized  people 
to  act  in  this  manner.  In  barbarous  days  men  never 
thought  of  asking  their  opponents  what  rights  were 
on  their  side.  The  one  question  was  how  to  rush 
quickly  upon  the  enemy  and  extinguish  him.  Not  so 
where  civilization  reigns.  There  the  question  is, 
What  is  it  that  is  right  ?  What  is  it  that  justice  sug- 
gests? We  know  better  what  justice  suggests  when 
we  have  heard  both  sides. 

Certainly  the  prosperity  of  the  country  demands 


32  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

that  as  rapidly  as  possible  classes  come  to  understand 
one  another.  Just  see  what  this  late  strike  in  the 
coal  regions  has  done  in  the  country.  The  amount 
of  money  lost — of  money  unearned,  is  beyond  calcu- 
lation. The  owners  of  mines  have  lost  immense 
sums;  the  miners  have  deprived  themselves  of  earn- 
ings for  four  or  five  or  six  months;  the  public  at 
large  has  suffered.  If  the  strike  had  continued  a 
little  longer  the  whole  country  would  have  entered 
into  the  rigors  of  the  winter  season  with  danger  of 
untold  suffering.  Now  surely  there  is  no  lover  of 
this  country,  no  lover  of  his  kind,  who  will  not  say 
that  it  is  his  duty  to  do  all  that  he  can  to  prevent 
any  such  incidents  occurring  in  America.  Let  us 
hope  and  trust  that  the  lessons  derived  from  this  late 
strike  are  such  that  a  strike  of  the  kind  will  hence- 
forward be  an  impossibility.  Let  us  so  educate 
the  country  at  large  upon  this  question  that  all  shall 
feel  that  their  first  duty  is  peace,  union  and  harmony. 
We  are  doing  a  work  of  patriotism.  What  is  it  that 
gives  us  a  great  and  good  country?  It  is  not  vic- 
tories on  battle  fields — glorious  as  these  are.  What 
we  need  for  a  great  country  is  a  happy,  contented 
people,  and  what  we  need  in  order  to  have  a  happy, 
contented  people  is  a  good  understanding  between 
all  classes  of  the  people.  This  has  been  the  mis- 
fortune of  humanity;  it  so  easily  divides  itself  into 
separate  classes.  One  class  thinks  only  of  itself, 
and  how  it  may  prey  more  easily  upon  the  other. 
There  will  be  no  happy  people  until  all  realize  the 
great  truth  dictated  by  reason,  dictated  by  religion, 
that  we  are  all  brothers ;  that  no  one  can  find  happi- 


I\DT-STR/AL  COXFEREXCE.  33 

ness,  if  he  must  consider  that  not  far  from  him  there 
are  fellow  beings  in  suffering  and  in  want.  Indus- 
trial peace,  so  desirable  in  any  land,  is  particularly 
so  in  America,  in  a  democracy  such  as  America  is. 
America,  for  weal  or  for  woe,  is  essentially  an  organ- 
ized democracy.  The  people  reign.  We  must  have 
the  people,  the  masses  at  large,  the  full  citizenship 
of  the  country,  happy  and  contented.  We  must  have 
all  classes  feel  that  other  classes  acknowledge  their 
rights,  and  are  willing  to  think  of  them  as  well  as  of 
themselves. 

When  at  first  an  organization  enters  into  the  field 
of  action  it  scarcely  knows  what  is  before  it.  A 
year  ago  the  Civic  Federation  was  formed;  to-day 
we  have  far  better  conception  of  the  possibilities 
that  await  it.  As  it  is,  we  have  by  the  mere  fact 
of  our  organization  put  strongly  before  the  whole 
country  the  principle  of  harmony  between  capital 
and  labor.  We  have  affected  favorably  public  opinion . 
Largely  through  the  influence  of  this  Federation  the 
idea  is  abroad  that  there  must  be  an  understanding 
between  capital  and  labor,  a  recognition  of  the 
rights  of  one  class  by  the  other.  At  times  in  par- 
ticular cases  we  may  have  failed  to  bring  peace, 
but  the  principle  was  upheld.  No  matter  how 
difficult  the  problem,  once  public  opinion  is  com- 
mitted to  seeking  a  solution,  the  solution  is  sure 
to  come.  If  we  were  to  go  out  of  existence  to-day 
as  an  organization,  we  could  write  as  our  epitaph, 
"Well  done,  good  and  faithful  servant,"  because  the 
Civic  Federation  during  its  brief  existence  held  high 
before  the  minds  of  the  people  of  America  the 


34  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

great  principles  of  harmony,  of  peace  through 
arbitration,  of  the  common  brotherhood  of  men. 

Our  president  and  our  secretary  could  well  say 
if  they  were  to  go  into  details,  that  here  and  there 
many  disputes  have  been  actually  settled  by  the 
Civic  Federation  during  the  last  year.  People  are 
captious,  and  if  they  can  find  one  point  where  we  did 
not  succeed  they  will  talk  of  that  and  forget  the 
nine  points  where  we  did  succeed.  There  are  several 
instances  on  our  records  where,  by  bringing  together 
employers  and  employees,  difficulties  were  removed, 
and  strikes  and  disagreements  were  brought  to  an 
end.  Difficulties  were  removed  when  men  simply 
saw  one  another.  This  is  what  has  happened  dur- 
ing the  past  year,  and  this  is  what  is  going  to  happen 
more  and  more  in  the  future  through  the  efforts 
of  the  Civic  Federation.  The  Civic  Federation 
has  been  organized;  it  will  stay  organized.  It 
has  begun  work;  it  will  continue  to  work. 

What  is  very  much  needed  in  the  country  to-day 
we  shall  strive  to  give,  as  we  are  giving  it  in  our 
present  conferences — education  on  industrial  ques- 
tions. Men  who  are  very  learned  in  many  other 
things  know  little  of  sociology.  The  reason  is 
not  difficult  to  be  found.  It  is  a  new  thing.  Men 
have  not  studied  it  heretofore.  Many,  though  well 
meaning,  are  at  sea  in  regard  to  it.  Let  us  create 
a  taste  for  the  study  of  sociology.  Let  the  attention 
of  the  people  be  concentrated  upon  industrial 
problems.  It  is  not  so  much  what  we  say  between 
these  four  walls;  it  is  what  our  words  stimulate 
to  have  said  through  the  country  at  large. 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  35 

"Well,  what  is  going  to  happen,"  I  hear  it  some- 
times said.  "Will  there  not  be  a  revolution?"  Why, 
not  at  all;  not  surely  in  the  United  States,  where 
men  are  accustomed  to  public  discussion;  where 
men  feel  that  the  public  welfare  is  the  crowning  apex 
of  the  efforts  of  all;  where  all  have  a  sense  of  civic 
duty;  where  all  love  their  country.  I  am  not 
afraid  of  any  discussion  on  any  question  in  America. 
I  think  we  shall  be  able  to  solve  all  problems  quietly, 
and  with  time;  but  we  must  have  patience  while  we 
are  solving  them;  for  we  do  not  expect  to  give 
solutions,  as  I  said  before,  all  in  a  moment.  I  have 
naught  but  brightest  hopes  for  industrialism  through- 
out the  world  at  large.  See  what  has  happened 
to-day.  Intelligent  men  from  England  come  to 
America  to  study  the  conditions  of  our  country. 
They  will  go  back  to  their  homes  and  make  reports 
of  what  they  have  seen.  You  notice  the  thought- 
fulness  of  those  gentlemen.  You  notice  the  wish 
they  have  had  to  arrive  at  the  best  solutions.  And 
what  is  happening  in  England  is  happening  more 
or  less  in  other  countries.  No  doubt  we  hear  of 
perils  to  come  from  extremists.  Whenever  there 
is  any  movement  extremists  will  attach  themselves 
to  it.  We  are  at  times  very  singular.  We  want 
every  movement  to  be  perfect  in  all  its  steppings. 
That  is  impossible.  There  will  be  extremists  on 
the  side  of  labor,  as  there  will  be  on  the  side  of  capi- 
tal. This  does  not  mean  to  say  that  capital  has 
not  its  rights,  that  labor  has  not  its  rights,  that 
labor  and  capital  will  not  be  allowed  their  rights. 
There  is  a  better  day  coming.  And  who  will  not 


36  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

rejoice,  be  he  laborer  or  capitalist,  be  he  rich  or 
poor,  in  the  prospect  that  the  multitudes,  the  mil- 
lions, are  to  see  rising  before  them  a  brighter  sun. 
For  let  us  say  what  we  will  of  to-day  or  to-mornyvv, 
in  past  ages  the  children  of  toil  have  had  a  hard  lot. 
The  time  has  come  when  we  feel  that  the  masses  of 
humanity  are  to  be  better  cared  for.  The  time  has 
come  when  rights  shall  be  given  to  every  man,  to 
every  child,  because  these  rights  are  a  divine  crea- 
tion, and  men  cannot  hold  back  from  their  fellows 
what  God  has  granted  to  them.  We  rejoice  that 
this  brighter  sun  is  rising  in  the  sky.  And  while 
the  millions  of  toilers  feel  that  public  sentiment 
leavened  with  Christian  teaching  is  going  out  to 
them  and  is  determined  to  grant  them  their  rights, 
they  in  return,  I  am  very  sure,  will  feel  that  it  is 
their  duty  to  recognize  the  rights  of  others.  I  am 
not  afraid  of  any  of  these  radical  populistic  or  com- 
munistic movements  with  which  we  are  sometimes 
threatened,  and  with  which  the  enemies  of  labor 
would  sometimes  seek  to  indentify  labor.  The  la- 
borer is  intelligent ;  the  laborer  knows  that  his  own 
prosperity  is  linked  with  the  prosperity  of  others; 
the  laborer  understands  that  he  personally  stands 
or  falls  as  the  whole  social  fabric  stands  or  falls. 
Let  us  give  to  every  man  his  rights,  and  by  giving 
to  every  man  his  rights  we  educate  him  into  the 
higher  principles  of  justice  and  religion,  through 
which  he  will  concede  to  others  their  rights.  Where- 
ever  there  is  a  mind,  we  must  enlighten  it ;  wherever 
there  is  a  conscience,  we  must  awaken  it ;  wherever 
there  is  an  arm,  we  must  strengthen  it,  and  by 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  37 

strengthening  every  individual  member  of  society 
we  strengthen  all  society.  But  be  all  this  as  it  may, 
there  is  a  new  era  before  the  world,  an  era  of  better 
and  more  effective  effort,  an  era  of  general  prosperity, 
an  era  of  awakening  of  livelier  sentiments  of  justice 
and  of  charity;  and  to  have  contributed  somewhat 
to  the  hastening  of  this  era,  to  have  by  some  little 
work  or  by  some  little  act  helped  on  the  work  of 
humanity  toward  this  higher  plane  of  brotherhood 
and  of  Christianity,  is  a  task  that  any  man  may  be 
well  proud  of;  a  task  the  accomplishment  of  which 
cannot  but  be  most  agreeable  to  the  Father  of  all 
men,  the  Almighty  God  above  us. 


THE  CHAIRMAN:    The  next  speaker  is  Mr.   C.    lj 
Carpenter,  representing  the  labor  department  of  the 
National  Cash  Register  Company,  of  Dayton,  Ohio. 

LABOR  DEPARTMENTS  FOR  LARGE   INDUS- 
TRIAL ORGANIZATIONS. 

THE  labor  problem  now  confronting  us  can  never 
be  solved  until  capital  is  organized  with  the  same 
care  and  thoroughness  as  labor.  This  fact  is  be- 
coming clearer  every  day,  and  it  behooves  every 
manufacturer  to  give  the  closest  consideration  to  it. 
Experience  has  shown  the  necessity  for  strong  or- 
ganizations of  capital  to  meet  and  bargain  with  the 
existing  organizations  of  labor.  That  both  sides  will 
be  greatly  benefited  cannot  be  doubted. 

To  be  effective  there  should  exist  national  organ- 
izations of  associated  industries,  local  associations  of 
these  same  manufacturers;  all  to  be  linked  together 
by  a  national  body.  The  similarity  of  this  plan  to 
that  of  the  labor  unions  will  be  noted. 

The  plan  of  forming  a  labor  department  in  large 
industrial  organizations  is,  however,  most  important. 
Only  by  some  such  method  can  that  old-time  "per- 
sonal touch  with  employees"  be  restored.  The  lack 
of  this  personal,  direct  touch  is  responsible  for  much 
of  the  difficulty  of  the  present  day. 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


39 


No  better  introduction  to  the  discussion  of  the 
work  of  a  labor  department  in  large  industrial  or- 
ganizations can  be  given  than  a  quotation  from  Her- 
mann Justi's  address  on  "Arbitration,"  delivered  at 
Minneapolis  some  months  ago. 

ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  EMPLOYER  CLASS. 

"All  talk  of  arbitration  or  anything  akin  to  it  is  well 
nigh  idle,  unless  we  take  account  of  organization — not  only 
as  applied  to  employees,  but  organization  as  applied  to 
employer.  Whether  we  oppose  it  or  favor  it,  organized 
labor  has  come  to  stay,  and  it  must  therefore  be  considered 
because  we  must  deal  with  it.  The  employer  class  must 
organize  to  a  point  of  excellence  and  efficiency  where  or- 
ganized labor  will  respect  it. 

' '  I  am  convinced  that  only  by  organization  can  common 
labor  get  the  maximum  wages  for  its  hire.  I  am  equally 
well  convinced  that  only  through  organization  of  the  em- 
ployer class  will  capital  obtain  from  organized  labor  the 
most  and  the  best  service  in  return  for  the  wages  paid. 

"It  is  my  belief  that  all  great  departments  of  industry 
must  have  their  departments  of  labor  if  serious  friction  is 
to  be  avoided,  and  wisely  adjusted.  When  we  pause  to 
reflect,  is  it  not  remarkable  that  all  the  departments  of 
great  business  enterprises  have  their  especially  appointed 
heads  to  direct  and  to  manage,  with  the  exception  of  the 
department  of  labor?  This  is  allowed  to  get  along  as  best 
it  can,  and  yet  what  department  of  any  great  business  enter- 
prise is  of  equal  importance?  This  seems  the  more  inex- 
plicable and  indefensible  in  view  of  the  fact  that  when 
we  reduce  the  whole  problem  of  business  competition  to 
the  concrete  form  there  are  only  two  propositions  after  all 
with  which  the  business  man  has  to  deal;  the  price  of  labor 
and  the  rate  of  interest." 

And  are  not  these  absolute  facts?  What  work  re- 
quires more  specialization,  more  fair-mindedness, 


4o  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

more  continuous  and  tactful  attention  than  the  hand- 
ling of  the  labor  question  ?  And  yet  upon  whom  does 
this  delicate  and  difficult  problem  actually  fall?  Is 
it  handled  by  a  department  composed  of  men  specially 
fitted  for  this  question  by  their  education,  broad 
study  of  labor,  knowledge  of  labor  conditions  all  over 
the  country ;  men  selected  for  their  fair-mindedness 
and  practical  experience  in  handling  large  bodies  of 
men,  and  of  such  character  as  to  gain  the  confidence 
of  the  workmen ;  men  of  experience  in  making  labor 
contracts  and  who  know  where  the  rights  of  labor 
end  and  the  transgressions  upon  the  rights  of  capital 
begin,  even  according  to  the  Union  Constitution? 

No!  this  is  seldom  the  case.  The  active,  actual, 
everyday  working  policy  of  handling  labor,  the  part 
that  is  vital  to  the  workmen  and  the  manufacturer, 
is  dictated  not  by  him  but  by  his  foreman.  The 
men  who  are  superintending  the  departments  are 
exercising  the  direct  and  consequently  the  real  po- 
tential influence  over  the  men  for  good  or  bad.  No 
matter  what  the  manufacturer  may  do  for  his  men, 
no  matter  what  his  actual  policy  may  be,  their  feeling 
toward  the  firm  is  governed  more  by  their  feeling 
toward  the  man  who  has  them  in  daily  control  than 
by  any  other  factor. 

The  methods  used  by  the  foremen  in  handling  their 
men,  and  the  system  of  pay,  may  well  be  considered 
carefully,  because  they  affect  the  worker  directly,  and 
consequently  have  great  influence  upon  him. 

When  once  trouble  does  begin,  the  proposition 
becomes  involved  with  the  feelings  and  probably  the 
prejudices  of  all  the  men  who  have  attempted  to 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  4I 

handle  it.  By  the  time  it  reaches  the  employer  there 
accompanies  it  a  large  amount  of  bad  feeling  and 
doubt  of  good  intention  on  the  part  of  both  parties. 
The  proposal  is  at  times  too  absurd  for  the  employer 
to  entertain.  The  workmen,  however,  have  become 
so  embittered  as  to  insist  upon  its  fulfillment.  Or, 
on  the  other  hand,  the  employer  will  often  see  in  the 
proposal  a  large  element  of  justice  which  he  would 
have  admitted  without  hesitation  if  the  propositions 
had  come  to  him  "  first  handed."  He,  however,  often 
feels  obliged  to  refuse  the  request  for  the  sake  of  dis- 
cipline and  his  desire  to  stand  by  his  subordinates. 

Many  bitter  strikes  have  occurred  under  such  con- 
ditions ;  strikes  which  would  have  been  easily  avoided 
had  the  question  been  fairly  and  promptly  met  at 
the  very  inception  of  trouble. 

Gentlemen,  "the  time  to  stop  trouble  is  before  it- 
begins."  Some  plan  of  organization  must  be  adopted 
to  insure  this.  Some  method  should  exist  whereby 
employer  and  men  could  get  together  before  trouble 
begins. 

I  am  far  from  saying  that  all  the  demands  and 
actions  of  unions  are  fair.  We  know  from  experience 
how  unreasonable  they  often  are ;  but  a  large  number 
of  them  are  fair,  and  prompt  attention,  together  with 
the  determination  to  do  absolute  justice  both  to  the 
company  and  to  the  men,  and  to  stand  by  what  is 
right  and  to  fight  for  it  if  necessary,  will  accomplish 
most  desirable  results. 

Consider  the  actual  questions  that  give  rise  to 
strikes,  lock-outs,  and  arbitration  and  conciliation 
committees.  Consider  the  gist  of  the  questions  that 


42  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

these  important  bodies  must  consider  after  the 
trouble  has  reached  the  point  where,  for  the  sake  of 
the  manufacturer,  the  workman  or  the  public,  they 
must  be  called  upon.  Are  not  they  the  practical 
questions  of  wages,  hours,  conditions  under  which 
men  work,  discharges,  unreasonable  demands,  un- 
justifiable and  unreasonable  rules  and  practices, 
restrictions  upon  employment,  limitation  of  output, 
etc.?  Should  we  not  begin  at  the  lower  end  of  this 
problem  and  provide  some  adequate  means  whereby 
the  manufacturer  and  his  men  can  come  face  to  face 
and  consider  these  questions  fairly  and  squarely, 
before  matters  get  to  such  a  serious  issue  as  to  render 
it  necessary  to  call  in  outsiders  to  make  a  settlement — 
settlements  rarely  wholly  acceptable  to  either  party 
to  the  dispute  and  which,  when  finally  accepted, 
leave  behind  a  bitter  feeling  of  resentment  ? 

Both  logic  and  practical  experience  in  handling 
large  bodies  of  both  union  and  non-union  men  have 
proven  the  necessity  of  labor  departments.  No 
matter  how  capital  may  organize,  its  organization 
will  be  lacking  its  greatest  element  of  strength  and 
influence  unless  there  are  formed  such  special  de- 
partments to  handle  the  question. 

The  functions  of  a  labor  department,  as  I  will 
describe  them  briefly,  are  such  as  have  been  devel- 
oped and  found  necessary  in  actual  experience  in 
organizing  and  developing  this  work. 

WORK   OF  A   LABOR  DEPARTMENT. 

Such  a  department  should  be  in  control  of  the 
labor  question.  It  should  have  the  power  to  in- 


Of 
INDUSTRIAL  C.  43 

vestigate  and  correct  any  existing  conditions  which 
are  unfair  to  the  workmen — conditions  which  impair 
their  efficiency  as  workmen  and  development  as 
men.  On  the  other  hand,  it  should  investigate 
those  practices  on  the  part  of  the  workmen  which  are 
unjust  to  the  firm  and  should  endeavor  to  have  them 
corrected.  In  actual  experience  great  good  has 
been  accomplished  by  investigating  and  taking  up 
with  the  workmen  such  matters  as  restriction  of 
output,  opposition  to  improved  machinery,  unjust 
wage  demands,  unreasonable  opposition  to  justifi- 
able discharges,  etc.  Many  important  matters  bear- 
ing directly  upon  economy  of  production,  efficiency 
of  the  workmen,  and  discipline  of  the  shop  have  been 
amicably  settled,  that  would  probably  have  ulti- 
mately resulted  in  serious  trouble  had  they  been 
handled  through  the  usual  course  in  the  usual  manner. 
All  complaints  of  workmen  and  company  or 
foremen  should  be  promptly  considered,  and  de- 
cisively settled  before  they  have  had  time  to  grow 
into  unwarranted  importance.  It  is  a  cardinal 
principle  that  all  decisions  must  be  along  the  lines 
of  justice  and  fairness. 

WAGE      QUESTION. 

The  importance  of  a  just  and  scientific  wage 
system,  both  from  the  standpoint  of  satisfying  the  ' 
workmen  and  of  producing  work  with  the  greatest 
economy,  can  hardly  be  over  estimated.  The  lack 
of  attention  to  this  matter  causes  most  of  the  trouble 
between  employees  and  employer. 

This  department  may  also  investigate  and  install 


44  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

such  improvements  in  working  and  sanitary  con- 
ditions as  experience  has  shown  to  be  practical. 
Such  work  is  thoroughly  justified,  both  on  the  ground 
of  humanity  and  of  economy  of  production. 

INCREASING  EFFICIENCY  OF  FACTORY  FORCE. 

Other  important  questions,  such  as  employment, 
discharge  and  improving  the  personnel  of  the  work- 
men, should  be  in  charge  of  such  a  department. 
Systematic  steps  to  separate  the  poor  workmen  from 
the  efficient,  for  their  education  and  improvement, 
or,  in  case  they  prove  totally  inefficient,  their  dis- 
charge, are  important  factors  in  improving  the 
working  efficiency  of  a  factory  force. 

The  study  of  associations  of  labor  and  capital 
and  an  acquaintance  with  legal  decisions  bearing 
upon  the  relations  and  rights  of  capital,  as  well  as 
labor,  are  often  very  important. 

The  work  of  such  a  department  will  be  largely 
ineffective  unless  it  has  the  support  and  co-operation 
of  the  foremen  or  men  who  are  in  direct  charge  of 
departments.  These  men  should  be  brought  into 
sympathy  with  its  aims  and  purposes.  Generally 
the  responsibility  for  this  question  is  something 
that  they  will  gladly  relinquish,  but  the  seeming 
interference  with  their  pre-conceived  ideas  of  the 
boundaries  of  their  own  authority  will  be  at  first 
resented. 

FOREMEN'S  MEETINGS 

These  men  must  also  be  instructed  and  trained 
in  the  best  methods  of  handling  men ;  most  effective 
ways  of  increasing  their  working  efficiency  in  a 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


45 


manner  not  detrimental  to  their  health ;  of  increas- 
ing their  interest  in  their  work,  and,  especially  in 
union  shops,  the  most  effective  methods  of  securing 
the  best  results  for  the  company  and  men  under 
union  conditions. 

Certain  it  is  that  this  department  must  be  so  con- 
ducted as  to  deserve  and  win  the  confidence  of  the 
workmen  in  its  fairness  and  firmness.  Its  decisions 
must  be  along  the  lines  of  honesty  and  justice  for 
both  company  and  men.  Unless  the  foremen  will 
give  their  support  to  this  policy  much  of  the  effect 
of  its  good  work  will  be  lost. 

In  order  to  gain  the  desired  results,  weekly  meet- 
ings should  be  held  of  all  foremen  and  assistants, 
for  the  purpose  of  discussing  the  problems  that  they 
meet  every  day  and  of  finding  some  solution  to 
them.  Such  meetings  may  properly  be  termed 
Foremen's  Schools. 

Here  should  be  discussed  frankly  and  fairly  union- 
ism in  all  its  phases.  The  difficulties  they  exper- 
ience in  regard  to  it,  and  methods  of  overcoming 
their  trouble;  the  best  methods  of  handling  men 
and  getting  good  work  from  them;  methods  of  en- 
couraging workmen  to  take  more  interest  in  their 
work;  methods  of  encouraging  all  workmen  to  at- 
tend their  union  meetings,  and  take  an  active  part 
in  the  proceedings;  encouraging  good  workmen  to 
act  as  Officers  and  members  of  union  committees.  In 
many  cases  in  my  experience  foremen  were  found 
making  it  so  unpleasant  for  union  shop  committee- 
men  that  only  the  worst  and  most  radical  men  would 
serve;  the  better  and  more  conservative  men  not 


46  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

only  would  not  serve  on  committees  but  would  not 
even  attend  meetings,  not  caring  to  be  identified 
with  the  movement,  especially  in  view  of  the  fore- 
men's feelings. 

In  short,  such  a  method  of  education  should  force 
a  homogeneous  policy  of  firm  and  fair  methods  in 
handling  unionism  throughout  the  entire  establish- 
ment. 

PRACTICAL  EXAMPLE. 

The  only  test  of  a  theory  worth  considering  is 
the  result  of  a  practical  application  of  it.  I  pro- 
pose to  give  you  a  concrete  example  of  actual  re- 
sults of  such  a  labor  department,  organized  under 
most  stringent  union  conditions. 

The  National  Cash  Register  Company  was  thor- 
oughly unionized  about  three  years  ago.  We 
now  have  represented  in  our  factory  eight  Inter- 
national Union  organizations;  fourteen  local  unions, 
and  about  twenty-six  shop  committees.  As  has 
been  described  in  the  press ,  we  soon  had  in  full  bloom 
all  of  the  features  of  unionism  that  render  it  dis- 
tasteful to  manufacturers.  We  experienced  the 
restriction  of  the  employment  of  men,  and  the 
greatest  difficulty  in  discharging  incompetent  men. 
Many  of  the  workmen's  complaints  were  just,  but 
many  were  of  a  most  unreasonable  character.  They 
imposed  the  most  stringent  methods  of  restriction 
of  output  and  earnings;  their  principles  regarding 
these  being  printed  in  their  by-laws.  Fines  were 
imposed  if  a  workman  should  earn  over  a  stipulated 
amount  per  hour. 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


4? 


The  labor  department  was  formed  by  Mr.  Patter- 
son, largely  upon  the  lines  laid  down  in  this  ad- 
dress. By  carrying  out  the  policy  outlined,  es- 
pecially in  regard  to  being  fair  and  just,  we  have, 
I  am  safe  in  saying,  gained  the  confidence  of  our 
workmen.  The  radical  demands  have  practically 
all  ceased.  The  men  seem  now  to  limit  their  com- 
plaints to  those  which  are  fair.  The  illiberal  and 
unreasonable  portion  of  the  restrictions  of  employ- 
ment and  discharge  have  been  done  away  with. 
There  is  now  on  foot  among  the  men  a  movement 
to  do  away  entirely  with  the  restriction  of  output 
and  earnings.  In  fact,  I  have  just  received  infor- 
mation that  leads  me  to  believe  that  this  has  al- 
ready been  done  away  with  in  one  large  department , 
and  that  their  action  will  be  followed  by  a  similar 
one  on  the  part  of  the  entire  factory.  A  very  differ- 
ent feeling  between  employer  and  employee  now 
exists  in  the  factory. 

While  we  do  not  by  any  means  claim  that  the 
end  has  yet  been  reached,  and  that  we  have  ideal 
union  conditions,  the  position  of  both  men  and  com- 
pany have  changed  to  such  a  degree  that  we  feel 
that  we  are  certainly  justified  in  considering  that 
we  are  on  the  right  track. 

If  your  shop  is  unionized  it  is  of  course  for  you 
to  choose  whether  you  will  continue  to  fight  and 
keep  up  the  strife,  or  whether  you  will  make  the 
best  of  it  and  do  what  you  can  to  develop  both 
your  organization  and  the  union's  along  liberal 
lines. 

Whether  or  not  it  is  unionized,  I  advise  you  to 


48  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

make  a  careful,  unbiased  investigation  of  actual 
conditions  and  ascertain  what  causes  for  dissatis- 
faction exist  between  your  workmen  and  yourself. 
See  that  the  opportunity  is  given  them  to  earn  a 
wage  such  as  the  business  can  afford  to  pay  under 
such  a  system  of  pay  as  is  both  economical  and 
just.  Provide  them  with  sanitary  conditions  which 
modern  industrial  science  has  demonstrated  pays 
you  to  give  them,  and  which  humanitarian  prin- 
ciples show  are  just  and  fair.  Hear  their  complaints, 
correct  promptly  all  evils,  insist  that  they  do  their 
share,  and  that  they  too  correct  the  evils  that  they 
are  responsible  for,  and  the  desired  result  will  in 
time  be  forthcoming. 

If  you  recognize  the  tendency  toward  organization 
and  your  shop  is  unionized  try  to  establish  relations 
of  confidence  between  yourselves  and  your  em- 
ployees and  provide  some  means  whereby  you  and 
they  can  meet  on  common  ground,  so  that  each  can 
learn  of  those  things  that  are  unfair  in  the  attitude 
or  conduct  of  the  other  and  consider  these  in  the 
spirit  of  justice.  This  does  not  by  any  means  imply 
a  weakened  policy  of  handling  the  question.  It  is  a 
policy  of  strength  rather  than  weakness. 

MR.  G.  C.  SIKES:  I  have  been  asked  to  discuss  the 
subject  of  arbitration  as  related  to  public  service 
corporations,  and  especially  to  explain  to  you  the 
position  taken  in  this  question  by  the  Chicago  Street 
Railway  Commission,  of  which  I  was  secretary.  In 
what  I  may  have  to  say  I  will  confine  myself  largely 
to  street  railways,  as  that  is  the  matter  with  which 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


49 


I  am  most  familiar,  but  the  principle  of  my  argument 
would  apply  as  well  to  lighting,  telephone  and  water 
companies  in  the  municipal  field,  and  to  railroad  and 
telegraph  companies  in  the  national  field.  I  am  as 
much  opposed  probably  as  any  one  in  this  room  to 
what  is  commonly  known  as  compulsory  arbitration 
as  applied  to  industry  generally.  I  believe  such  a 
policy  is  contrary  to  right  principles  and  to  American 
ideas,  and  that  it  is  likely,  in  the  long  run  at  least, 
to  be  productive  of  harm  and  to  lead  to  stagnation. 
But  I  differentiate  the  public  service  corporation 
from  the  ordinary  industrial  corporation.  My  propo- 
sition is  that  the  public  service  corporation  should  be 
required,  as  one  of  the  conditions  of  its  franchise 
grant,  to  agree  to  submit  disputes  with  its  employees 
to  arbitration. 

As  you  may  know,  the  street  railway  situation  in 
Chicago  has  been  a  subject  of  agitation  for  some  time. 
The  principal  franchises  of  the  companies  begin  to 
expire  soon,  and  consequently  the  whole  subject  has 
given  rise  to  extensive  discussion.  A  commission 
was  appointed  to  consider  the  whole  subject  and 
recommend  a  franchise  policy  for  the  city  of  Chicago. 
Among  other  things,  that  commission  gave  attentionto 
the  matter  of  labor  policy  in  connection  with  franchise 
grants.  Its  specific  recommendation  was  as  follows: 

The  public  has  a  right  to  demand  uninterrupted 
street  railway  service.  To  that  end,  it  has  a  right 
to  insist  that  everything  reasonably  possible  be  done 
to  prevent  strikes  and  lock-outs.  Companies,  in  ac- 
cepting grants,  should  be  required  to  submit  all 
labor  disputes  to  arbitration. 


50  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

Perhaps  the  most  enlightening  thing  I  can  do  will 
be  to  read  from  the  report  of  the  Street  Railway 
Commission  the  argument  therein  set  forth  in  sup- 
port of  the  recommendation  made. 

"European  and  Canadian  cities  very  commonly  insert 
in  franchise  grants  stipulations  concerning  the  maximum 
length  of  the  working  day  and  the  minimum  wage  for  em- 
ployees. In  some  instances  other  provisions  in  the  interesj 
of  employees  are  inserted.  The  most  elaborate  provisions 
of  this  kind  with  which  we  are  familiar  are  those  made  by 
the  city  of  Paris  for  the  benefit  of  employees  in  the  new 
Paris  system  of  subways  or  underground  roads.  As  a  rule, 
franchise  grants  by  American  cities  are  silent  on  the  mat- 
ter of  labor  conditions.  One  of  the  recent  Detroit  fran- 
chises is  an  exception  to  the  general  rule  in  that  it  stipulates 
that  employees  shall  not  be  obliged  to  work  more  than  ten 
hours  a  day.  In  some  instances,  however,  States  by  legis- 
lation have  attempted  to  regulate  the  hours  of  employment 
for  labor  of  this  kind.  Legislative  enactments  requiring 
the  vestibuling  of  cars  in  winter  and  other  measures  of 
similar  kind  indicate  a  growing  disposition  on  the  part  of 
the  public  to  consider  the  welfare  of  this  special  class  of  labor. 

' '  Considerations  of  humane  regard  for  the  welfare  of  those 
who  toil  have  their  weight  in  support  of  measures  of  this 
kind,  but  these  measures  are  justified  primarily  on  quite 
different  grounds.  Fair  treatment  of  street  railway  workers 
is  demanded  by  the  public  primarily  as  a  means  of  insuring 
efficient  and  continuous  service,  free  from  the  interruptions 
that  are  likely  to  grow  out  of  controversies  over  labor  con- 
ditions between  the  employing  corporations  and  dissatisfied 
employees.  Recent  street  railway  strikes  in  other  cities 
have  emphasized  the  importance  of  doing  whatever  may 
properly  be  done  to  guard  against  the  possibility  of  similar 
interruptions  of  service  here.  The  Street  Railway  Com- 
mission is  of  the  opinion  that  the  best  way  to  accomplish 
the  object  in  view  would  be  to  insert  in  all  future  franchise 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  51 

grants  a  provision  requiring  the  company,  in  case  of  a  dis- 
agreement with  its  employees  that  threatens  to  interfere 
with  service,  to  submit  the  same  to  arbitration  and  to  abide 
by  the  decision  of  the  arbitrator.  This  would  be  a  system 
of  arbitration  compulsory  upon  the  company  and  not  upon 
the  men,  it  is  true.  But  in  the  opinion  of  the  Commission 
this  fact  does  not  constitute  a  valid  objection  in  this  case, 
as  it  would  if  the  attempt  were  to  be  made  to  apply  the 
same  system  to  industrial  disputes  generally.  The  city  has 
no  direct  dealings  with  the  employees  which  give  it  warrant 
to  require  special  things  of  them.  But  the  company  comes 
to  the  city  as  a  seeker  for  privileges,  and  as  the  city  may 
grant  or  withhold  the  privilege  at  will,  so  it  may  properly 
grant  the  privilege  subject  to  conditions,  and  one  of  these 
conditions  may  properly  be  an  agreement  upon  the  part  of 
the  recipient  company  to  submit  disputes  with  its  employees 
to  arbitration.  It  is  as  competent  for  the  city  to  exact  such 
an  agreement  from  the  company,  as  a  condition  of  the  grant, 
as  it  is  for  the  city  to  exact  compensation,  or  to  require 
the  company  to  carry  policemen  and  firemen  free,  or  to  do 
a  number  of  other  things  which  the  city  does  require  of 
street  railway  companies  but  not  of  ordinary  industrial 
corporations. 

"Now,  as  to  the  practical  operation  of  this  plan.  If  the 
companies  always  stand  ready  to  arbitrate,  there  is  very 
little  likelihood  of  interruption  of  service  as  the  result 
of  street  car  strikes.  Street  car  strikers  cannot  win  a  con- 
test in  which  they  are  not  supported  by  public  sentiment, 
and  public  sentiment  would  be  almost  unanimous  against 
a  group  of  street  railway  employees  who  would  go  on  strike 
without  first  seeking  a  settlement  by  arbitration,  when 
such  a  remedy  should  be  open  to  them.  There  is  every 
likelihood  that  the  street  railway  employees  would  be  glad 
to  make  use  of  arbitration  as  a  means  of  adjusting  griev- 
ances. There  is  every  likelihood,  therefore,  that  a  system 
of  arbitration  compulsory  upon  the  company  receiving 
the  grant  would  remove  most  of  the  danger  of  interruption 
of  service  through  strikes  or  lockouts. 


52  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

"Continuous  service  is  the  thing  above  all  others  which 
the  public  must  have  from  its  transportation  agencies.  If 
the  city  itself  were  managing  the  street  railway  system 
employees  would  be  treated  in  such  a  manner  as  to  insure 
a  service  free  from  interruption  on  account  of  strikes.  In 
so  far  as  fair  treatment  of  employees  may  be  necessary  to 
continuous  service,  private  corporations  operating  street 
railways  under  a  franchise  from  the  city  should  be  required 
to  treat  employees  as  fairly  as  the  city  itself  would  treat 
them  were  it  their  direct  employer." 

As  is  pointed  out  in  the  report  from  which  I  have 
read,  the  justification  for  a  provision  like  that  recom- 
mended is  not  primarily  regard  for  the  welfare  of 
the  laborer,  though  we  are  coming  more  and  more 
to  be  solicitous  concerning  the  conditions  under  which 
such  labor  is  performed.  It  has  long  been  accepted 
that  the  public  ought  to  be,  as  far  as  possible,  an 
ideal  employer.  This  doctrine  has  been  amplified  so 
that  contractors  working  for  the  government  are  not 
supposed  to  be  permitted  to  maintain  improper  labor 
conditions.  The  time  has  now  come  to  go  further, 
and  to  say  that  agencies  of  the  government  of  every 
kind  shall  be  obliged  to  treat  their  workmen  fairly. 
And  a  street  railway  company  or  any  other  public 
service  corporation,  operating  under  a  franchise  grant, 
is  an  agent  of  the  public  for  the  purpose  of  rendering 
a  public  service.  Mr.  Vreeland,  manager  of  your 
street  railway  system  here,  to  my  mind  is  not  com- 
parable to  the  manager  of  a  strictly  private  competi- 
tive business,  like  a  shoe  factory,  for  example.  He 
is  to  be  likened,  rather,  to  the  head  of  your  police 
or  fire  department,  and  the  men  under  Mr.  Vreeland, 
in  the  nature  of  their  employment,  are  to  be  likened 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


53 


to  those  who  are  directly  in  the  employ  of  the  city  as 
policemen  or  firemen.     The  street  railway  and  other 
companies  of  a  similar  nature  are  rendering  a  public 
service,  and  it  is  the  duty  of  the  public  to  see  that 
the  employees  engaged  in  rendering  the  service  for 
them  are  properly  treated.     But  that  is  merely  the 
sentimental  side.     When  the  public  is  inconvenienced 
and  made  to  suffer  loss  from  the  interruption  of  street 
car  service  on  account  of  needless  strikes,  it  becomes 
its  duty  to  give  attention  to  the  subject  for  other 
than  sentimental  reasons.     It  ought  to  be  no  more 
possible  to  have  the  street  car  service  of  a  great  city 
interfered  with  by  labor  troubles  than  it  would  be 
to  have  the  fire  department  or  the  water  system  out 
of  action   for  a  similar  reason.     Experience   shows 
that  we  have  many  labor  troubles  in  this  field.     The 
last  was  in  New  Orleans,  where  the  city,  during  the 
past  summer  was  absolutely  without  street  car  ser- 
vice for  two  weeks.     Shortly  before,  St.  Louis,  San 
Francisco   and    Providence   were   having   somewhat 
similar  experiences.       Now   I   say  such   a   state   of 
things  should  be  impossible,  or  nearly  so.     It  is  as 
much  the  duty  of  the  public  authorities,  when  they 
are  entrusting  a  private  corporation  with  the  work 
of  rendering  a  public  service,  to  see  that  that  service 
shall  be  carried  on  without  interruption  from  strikes, 
as  it  is  to  see  that  the  service  shall  be  excellent  in 
other  respects.     If  the  company  stood  ready  at  all 
times  to  arbitrate  disputes  with  its  employees   there 
would  be  little  likelihood  of  interruption  of  service 
on   account   of   strikes.     Indirectly,   the   arbitration 
might  be  made  practically  binding  upon  the   men 


54  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

by  stipulating  that,  in  consideration  of  getting  the 
benefits  of  arbitration,  the  men  should  agree  in  ad- 
vance to  abide  by  any  award  that  might  be  given. 
Such  a  promise  on  the  part  of  the  men  would  be  of 
great  value  if  only  morally  enforcible,  but  it  might 
be  possible  to  give  it  greater  force  by  providing 
for  a  bond  that  should  be  forfeited  in  case  of  failure 
to  respect  an  award.  Or,  better  yet,  provision 
might  be  made  for  the  incorporation  of  the  union, 
so  that  the  men  would  be  legally  responsible  for 
failure  to  observe  any  agreements  they  might  en- 
ter into. 

Chicago  has  recently  had  experience  with  arbitra- 
tion, as  applied  to  street  railway  labor  troubles.  The 
Street  railway  labor  situation  has  had  threatening 
aspects  for  some  months.  Until  recently,  the  street 
railway  men  of  Chicago  were  without  organization, 
the  policy  of  the  companies  having  been  not  to 
permit  the  men  in  their  employ  to  affiliate  with 
unions.  A  few  months  ago  organizers  began  work 
among  the  street  railway  employees  and  met  with 
success.  The  companies  at  first  tried  to  disrupt  the 
organization  by  discharging  the  leaders,  but  the 
movement  was  too  strong  to  be  checked.  In  the  face 
of  a  threatened  strike  the  companies  withdrew  their 
opposition  to  the  formation  of  unions.  Then  came 
demands  for  wage  increases,  the  men  asking  a  raise 
from  21  to  28  cents  an  hour  for  conductors  and 
motormen  on  electric  cars.  The  City  Railway  Com- 
pany met  this  demand  with  an  offer  of  24  cents  an 
hour.  The  men  refused  the  offer,  and  resort  was 
had  to  arbitration,  with  the  result  that  24  cents  an 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  55 

hour  was  fixed  as  the  rate  to  be  paid,  all  three  arbi- 
trators concurring  in  the  award.  The  new  wage 
scale,  so  far  as  the  City  Railway  Company  is  con- 
cerned, went  into  effect  August  ist  last.  The  Union 
Traction  Company  met  the  request  for  more  wages 
with  an  offer  of  a  very  small  increase,  together  with 
a  proposition  for  complete  recognition  of  the  union. 
This  latter  proposition  was  so  attractive  to  the  leaders 
that  they  urged  acceptance,  but  the  men  on  a  direct 
vote  rejected  the  offer.  The  entire  matter  then  went 
to  arbitration.  The  union  selected  as  its  arbitrator 
Clarence  S.  Darrow,  and  the  company  chose  Wallace 
Heckman,  both  prominent  Chicago  attorneys.  For 
the  third  arbitrator  there  was  agreement  upon  W.  J. 
Onahan,  president  of  the  Home  Savings  Bank,  for- 
merly controller  of  the  city  of  Chicago,  and  one  of 
the  prominent  Catholic  laymen  in  the  country. 
These  arbitrators  decided  to  sit  like  a  court,  and  have 
each  side  present  its  case  by  attorneys.  The  sessions 
were  not  open  to  the  public,  but  the  gist  of  the  pro- 
ceedings was  given  to  the  press  as  the  hearings  pro- 
gressed. The  company  was  represented  by  its  presi- 
dent, John  M.  Roach,  and  by  its  general  counsel, 
W.  W.  Gurley.  The  union  was  represented  by  J.  H. 
Larkin,  its  president,  and  by  Edgar  L.  Masters,  an 
attorney  engaged  for  the  purpose. 

The  arbitrators  decided  that  the  wages  should  be 
24  cents  an  hour,  a  decision  that  was  satisfactory  to 
both  sides.  The  process  of  arbitration,  instead  of 
promoting  bitterness  between  the  parties,  seems  ac- 
tually to  have  fostered  good  feeling.  The  contro- 
versy was  settled  without  loss  of  either  wages  or 


56  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

profits  from  idleness,  and  more  important  still,  with- 
out the  injury  to  the  community  that  flows  from  in- 
terruption to  street  car  service.  The  temper  of  the 
men  in  Chicago  at  the  outset  was  radical  and  they 
seemed  disposed  to  strike  anyway,  in  the  confidence 
that  a  strike  was  bound  to  be  successful  and  to  bring 
greater  victories  than  could  be  expected  from  arbi- 
tration. It  is  fair  to  say  that  a  street  car  strike  of 
serious  dimensions  in  Chicago  was  prevented  only  be- 
cause the  companies  stood  ready  to  arbitrate,  and  in 
the  face  of  that  position  on  the  part  of  the  companies 
the  men  did  not  dare  to  strike,  knowing  that  if  they 
did  they  would  forfeit  their  standing  with  the  public. 
But,  it  may  be  well  to  ask,  How  comes  it  that  the 
street  railway  companies  in  Chicago  at  this  critical 
time  are  so  willing  to  arbitrate,  when  those  same  com- 
panies at  other  times  have  been,  and  street  railway 
companies  in  other  cities  usually  are,  so  loth  to  ac- 
cept arbitration  ?  The  answer  must  be  that  the  con- 
ditions in  Chicago  just  now  are  such  that  arbitration 
is  practically  compulsory  upon  the  companies.  The 
most  important  franchise  grants  of  these  companies 
expire  on  July  30  of  next  year,  less  than  a  twelve- 
month hence.  The  question  of  the  renewal  of  those 
grants  is  the  all-important  issue  of  local  politics  in 
Chicago.  At  a  time  when  the  companies  must  go  to 
the  city  government  asking  for  favors,  they  simply 
dare  not  offend  public  sentiment  by  inviting  a  need- 
less street  car  strike.  When  the  franchise  renewal 
question  shall  be  settled  and  out  of  the  way,  the 
Chicago  companies,  perhaps,  may  not  be  so  favorable 
to  the  policy 'of  arbitration,  unless  they  be  required 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  57 

by  the  terms  of  their  grant  to  submit  to  arbitration 
in  the  future. 

In  this  connection,  it  may  be  well  to  point  out  that 
the  National  Civic  Federation  was  helpful  in  prevent- 
ing trouble  in  Chicago,  as  a  member  of  the  execu- 
tive committee  of  the  Federation,  Mr.  Franklin  Mac- 
Veagh.  was  besought  to  use  his  good  offices  in  the  in- 
terest of  peace,  and  it  is  believed  that  his  conferences 
with  officials  of  the  Chicago  Union  Traction  Company 
had  much  to  do  with  leading  that  company  to  favor 
arbitration. 

In  case  we  are  not  willing  to  employ  arbitration ,  it 
seems  to  me  that  we  should  at  least  do  something 
akin  to  that  to  prevent  disputes  of  this  kind.  Most 
of  the  street  car  strikes  come  from  questions  of 
wages,  hours,  and  the  right  to  organize,  and  if  it  seems 
too  radical,  too  new,  to  insist  upon  requirements  for 
arbitration  as  a  feature  of  the  franchise  grant,  why 
at  least  here  should  be  inserted  a  clause  for  a  minimum 
wage  and  maximum  hours,  and  a  provision  making 
it  a  finable  offense  for  the  company  to  discharge  a 
man  for  membership  in  a  union. 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  next  speaker  is  Mr.  Charles 
Francis  Adams,  of  Boston,  who  will  speak  on 

INVESTIGATION     AND     PUBLICITY    AS     OP- 
POSED TO  "COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION." 

MORE  than  a  year  ago,  during  the  great  steel 
strike  of  August,  1901,  I  prepared  a  com- 
munication setting  forth  certain  Massachusetts  experi- 
ences, during  previous  similar  troubles,  as  being  worthy 
of  consideration.  They  suggested  a  possible  solution, 
practical  in  character,  of  what  are  known  as  "labor 
troubles" — the  conflicts  between  employer  and  em- 
ployee which  result  in  strikes  and  tie-ups.  Printed  in 
various  papers,  this  communication  caused  at  the  time 
some  discussion.  More  recently  I  have  been  applying 
the  experience  then  set  forth,  and  the  principles  advo- 
cated, to  the  existing  and  more  serious  complications 
which  have  since  arisen.  I  have  also  been  in  com- 
munication with  Col.  Carroll  D.  Wright  and  Mr. 
Henry  Cabot  Lodge,  one  of  the  senators  from  Mas- 
sachusetts, discussing  the  facts  and  theories  involved, 
with  a  view  to  what  may  be  considered  an  outcome 
based  on  the  systems,  political  and  constitutional, 
as  well  as  the  labor  conditions,  and  the  social  and 
industrial  organizations,  existing  to-day  in  the 
United  States.  With  a  view  to  ultimate  satisfactory 

58 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  59 

results,  the  effort  has  been  to  recognize  facts,  and  to 
make  action  conform  to  them.  My  purpose  to-day 
is  to  set  forth  as  briefly  as  possible  the  conclusions 
so  far  reached. 

In  the  communication  referred  to,  I  first  called  at- 
tention to  the  nearest  approach  to  a  practical  solution 
of  the  labor  problem  in  accordance  with  American 
conditions,  ideals,  and  traditions,  which  has,  so  far  as 
I  know,  yet  been  devised  and  put  in  use.  And,  in 
making  this  statement,  I  lay  emphasis  upon  the  word 
"American";  for  I  hold  it  to  be  quite  useless  to  take 
a  system,  whether  purely  ideal  and  theoretical,  or 
even,  in  other  countries,  practicable,  and  apply  it  gen- 
erally. The  first  essential  to  success  in  constructing 
or  developing  any  system  of  laws  is  that  such  system 
shall  be  in  conformity  with  the  conditions,  ideals  and 
traditions  of  the  community  for  which  it  is  designed. 
To  ignore  them,  much  more  to  run  counter  to  them,  is 
to  court  failure  at  the  outset.  As  Alexander  Hamil- 
ton said  more  than  a  century  ago  of  the  United 
States  Constitution — "A  government  must  be  fitted 
to  a  nation  much  as  a  coat  to  the  individual;  and 
consequently  what  may  be  good  at  Philadelphia, 
may  be  bad  at  Paris,  and  ridiculed  at  Petersburgh." 
In  like  manner,  a  system  of  legislation  designed  to 
regulate  the  relations  of  labor  and  capital  may 
work  well  in  Australia,  but  it  by  no  means  follows 
that  a  similar  system  would  work  well  in  Great 
Britain  or  Germany;  and  a  system  which  might  be 
practical,  if  not  reasonably  satisfactory,  in  Bohemia 
and  Austro-Hungary,  would  almost  surely  prove 
quite  otherwise  in  the  United  States. 


60  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

This  I  am  well  aware  is  a  commonplace,  almost, 
indeed,  a  platitude.  And  yet  it  is  necessary  to  pre- 
mise it  carefully;  for,  just  so  long  as  men  are  what 
they  now  are,  unusual  exigencies  will,  under  any 
system  of  government,  from  time  to  time  arise;  but, 
when  such  do  arise,  it  is  always  very  noticeable  how 
the  air  is  at  once  filled  with  suggestions  of  remedy, 
either  quite  untried  or  borrowed  from  other  lands. 
And  such  are  recommended  for  immediate  adoption, 
wholly  regardless  of  our  constitution,  laws,  political 
organization  or  the  spirit  of  our  industrial  develop- 
ment. This  is  empirical,  and,  in  these  matters, 
empiracy  is  of  all  things  to  be  shunned. 

I  come  now  to  the  experience  I  have  referred  to. 
There  is,  in  the  State  of  Massachusetts,  and  has  been 
for  over  thirty  years,  a  Board  of  Railroad  Com- 
missioners. In  the  history  of  that  Board  there  was 
one  important,  but  now  quite  forgotten,  incident, 
from  which  a  highly  suggestive  lesson  may  be  drawn. 
It  occurred  twenty-five  years  ago.  The  Massachu- 
setts Railroad  Commission  was  organized  on  the 
theory,  that,  in  adjusting  matters  of  difference  be- 
tween the  community  and  its  railroad  corporations, 
the  vesting  of  arbitrary  power  in  such  a  tribunal  was 
a  hindrance  to  it  rather  than  a  help;  for  the  reason 
that  in  America  force  is  in  the  long  run  less  effective 
in  producing  results  than  investigation,  and  subse- 
quent well-considered  recommendations  based 
thereon.  The  appeal  was  in  every  case  to  be  made 
to  reason  and  public  opinion,  and  not  to  the  sheriff  or 
the  soldier.  Accordingly,  in  the  event  of  differ- 
ences between  the  corporations  and  their  employees, 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  61 

even  those  resulting  in  strikes  and  tie-ups,  the 
Commissioners  had  no  executive  power.  It  was 
their  duty,  in  a  general  way,  to  take  official  cogni- 
zance of  the  fact  when  the  community  was  sustain- 
ing an  injury  or  an  inconvenience,  and  to  investigate 
the  causes  thereof.  Having  so  investigated,  the 
Board  was  empowered  to  locate  the  responsibility  for 
the  injury  and  inconvenience,  and  to  make  its  recom- 
mendations accordingly;  but  those  recommendations 
had  merely  a  moral  force.  They  could  be  addressed 
to  the  parties  concerned,  and  to  public  opinion,  only. 
Their  effect,  greater  or  less,  was  measured  by  the  jus- 
tice and  good  sense  impressed  upon  them.  The  Com- 
missioners, moreover,  disavowed  any  wish  to  be 
clothed  with  larger  powers.  They  feared  the  pos- 
session of  such  powers.  They  were  persuaded  they 
could  in  the  end  accomplish  more  satisfactory  results 
without  them. 

This  theory  was  soon  put  to  a  test.  At  four 
o'clock  in  the  afternoon  of  the  twelfth  of  February, 
1877,  all  the  locomotive  engineers  and  firemen  in  the 
employ  of  the  Boston  &  Maine  Railroad  Company 
stopped  work  in  a  body,  abandoning  their  trains. 
The  move  was  not  altogether  unexpected,  but  the 
operation  of  the  road  was  seriously  interfered  with. 
The  Commissioners  did  not  at  first  intervene,  neither 
party  calling  upon  them.  Indeed,  both  parties  were 
unwilling  so  to  do,  for  each  was  apprehensive,  appar- 
ently, of  adverse  action.  During  several  days,  ac- 
cordingly, the  Commissioners  preserved  an  attitude 
of  silent  observation.  After  the  lapse  of  a  reasonable 
period,  however,  the  Board  concluded  that  it  was 


62  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

plainly  time  to  recognize  the  fact  that  the  public  was 
suffering  serious  inconvenience ;  for  then  the  Boston  & 
Maine  Railroad  was,  as  it  still  is,  one  of  the  prin- 
cipal arteries  of  eastern  New  England.  The  presi- 
dent and  directors  of  the  company  and  the  employ- 
ees of  the  Brotherhood  of  Locomotive  Engineers  were 
accordingly  notified  that  the  Board  proposed  to  take 
a  hand  in  the  business.  This  it  proceeded  to  do.  An 
immediate  investigation  was  notified.  Both  parties 
appeared  —  for,  without  confessing  itself  in  the 
wrong,  neither  party  could  well  help  so  doing — and 
professed  a  perfect  willingness  to  submit  their  cases. 
No  suggestion  of  a  readiness  to  abide  by  any  decision 
that  might  be  given  thereon  was  either  asked  for  or 
given;  but  the  Board  proceeded  to  hear  witnesses 
and  to  elicit  the  facts.  The  inquiry  was  continued 
through  three  days,  and,  on  the  twenty-first  of  Feb- 
ruary, the  report  of  the  Board  was  made  public, 
appearing  in  full  in  all  the  newspapers  of  that  date. 
In  it  the  Commissioners,  after  carefully  and  judicially 
sifting  out  the  essential  facts  from  the  evidence  sub- 
mitted, placed  the  responsibility  for  the  trouble  where 
the  weight  of  evidence  showed  it  belonged,  and 
thereupon  proceeded  to  make  such  recommendations 
as  in  its  judgment  the  exigencies  called  for.  The 
effect  was  immediate.  An  authentic  record  was 
before  the  community,  and  public  opinion,  crystal- 
lizing, made  itself  decisively  felt. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  enter  further  into  the  history 
and  merits  —  the  rights  and  the  wrongs — of  that 
particular  struggle.  My  object  is  merely  to  call 
attention  to  what  was  then  done,  and  done  success- 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  63 

fully,  as  constituting  the  nearest  practical  approach 
consistent  with  our  American  political  and  social 
system  to  what  is  known  as  "Compulsory  Arbitra- 
tion." It  was  compulsory  inquiry  only,  and  an 
appeal  thereon  to  the  reason  and  sense  of  right  of  all 
concerned.  Reliance  was  placed  in  an  enlightened 
sense  of  right  of  all  concerned,  and  an  •informed 
public  opinion. 

Here  then  is  a  system.  Under  it  a  public  tribunal 
is  provided ;  that  tribunal  takes  official  cognizance  of 
what  is  notorious;  and,  when  either  the  peace  or  the 
business  of  the  community  sustains  prejudice  or  is 
gravely  jeopardized,  it  becomes  its  duty  to  intervene. 
It  intervenes  only  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  the 
information  necessary  to  enable  it  to  form  a  clear,  ju- 
dicial opinion.  It  then  sets  the  facts  before  the  com- 
munity, and  makes  its  recommendation.  It  locates 
responsibility.  There  it  stops;  for  it  can  compel 
obedience  on  neither  side. 

Now,  let  us  apply  this  proposed  system  to  the  con- 
ditions which,  for  the  last  eight  months,  have  existed 
in  the  anthracite  coal  regions.  Let  us  assume  that 
provision  by  law  existed  under  which  the  Executive, 
either  national  or  state,  was  empowered  and  directed 
to  appoint  such  a  board  pro  hoc  vice,  calling  it  into  ex- 
istence to  meet  a  sudden  emergency.  The  chances,  I 
submit,  are  at  least  nine  out  of  ten  that,  if  such  a 
machinery  had  existed,  and  had  been  judiciously  em- 
ployed either  by  the  Governor  of  Pennsylvania  or  the 
President  of  the  United  States,  a  practical  solution  of 
the  difficulty  which  for  the  last  eight  months  has 
harassed  the  country  would  have  been  reached.  The 


64  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE 

community  began  to  sustain  grave  prejudice  at  an 
early  stage  of  the  troubles.  The  resulting  injury  be- 
came more  and  more  flagrant  as  the  weeks  passed  by. 
The  continuance  of  such  conditions  not  only  was  in- 
jurious to  private  interests,  but,  as  we  all  know,  the 
public  peace  itself  was  involved.  Under  such  circum- 
stances, experience  shows  that  neither  party  will,  for 
obvious  reasons,  voluntarily  call  upon  a  board  or 
commission  to  intervene;  for  such  action  is  tanta- 
mount to  a  confession  of  weakness.  Both  will  look 
at  it  askance.  It  must  rest,  therefore,  in  the  discre- 
tion of  the  Executive  to  decide  whether  a  case  has 
arisen  which  calls  for  public  initiative;  the  public 
being  a  third  party  to  the  controversy.  That  it  is 
such,  it  is  impossible  to  deny.  It  therefore  has 
rights  and  interests — a  standing  in  court.  It  having 
been  decided,  in  the  exercise  of  a  sound  discretion, 
that  circumstances  call  for  this  third  party  to  act, 
the  Executive  gives  notice  to  all  concerned  that,  at 
the  proper  time  and  place,  it  is  proposed  to  enter  upon 
an  investigation.  If  both  parties  see  fit  then  to  ap- 
pear and  submit  evidence  as  to  the  facts,  that  evi- 
dence becomes  public  property.  If  one  party  ap- 
pears, the  other  absents  itself  at  its  peril.  Should 
neither  party  appear,  producing  authentic  docu- 
ments and  putting  in  a  case,  the  Board  would  pro- 
ceed to  enlighten  itself  through  all  other  accessible 
means.  In  behalf  of  the  third  party  to  the  con- 
troversy, of  which  it  is  the  representative,  it  should 
be  empowered  to  summon  witnesses,  and  to  enforce 
the  production  of  documents.  Having  completed 
its  investigation,  it  would  then  make  its  recommen- 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  65 

dations  definitely,  and,  if  it  knows  its  business,  con- 
cisely, locating  responsibility  where  the  evidence 
shows  it  belongs.  A  practical  solution  of  the  trouble, 
such  as  would  naturally  commend  itself  to  the  judg- 
ment of  an  unprejudiced  tribunal,  would  be  pointed 
out.  A  solution  of  that  sort  always  exists.  This 
report  would  be  transmitted  to  the  appointing 
power,  whether  President  or  Governor.  By  him 
it  would  then  be  communicated  to  the  parties  in 
interest,  including  the  public;  and,  in  due  time,  sub- 
mitted to  Congress,  or  the  State  Legislature,  always 
with  such  enforcing  or  qualifying  recommendations 
as  might  commend  themselves  to  executive  judg- 
ment. The  report  so  made  would  carry  with  the 
public  and  with  the  parties  concerned  exactly  that 
degree  of  weight  its  judicial  character  and  reasoning 
might  impart  to  it — that,  and  nothing  more.  It 
could  not  be  enforced  by  any  governmental  process. 
There  would  be  neither  sheriff,  nor  posse  comitatus, 
nor  military  force,  behind  it.  But,  if  well  reasoned 
and  impartial,  it  would  bring  to  bear  the  moral 
weight  of  an  enlightened  public  opinion. 

Did  such  a  machinery  as  this  exist,  simple  and  ad- 
visory only,  it  is  not  unsafe  to  say  that  it  would  prove 
adequate  for  the  settlement  of  nine  complications  out 
of  ten.  In  the  case  of  the  anthracite  strike,  for  in- 
stance, if  the  Commission  since  appointed  by  Presi- 
dent Roosevelt  could  have  been  appointed  four 
months  sooner,  while  the  conflict  was  in  the  earlier 
stage  of  development,  its  report  would  have  afforded 
to  one  or  both  parties  concerned  an  opportunity  to 
withdraw  creditably  from  a  position  which  after- 


66  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

wards,  for  at  least  one  of  them,  became  false  and 
consequently  perilous.  What  the  country  has  needed 
is  light — the  possession,  if  not  of  undisputed  facts,  at 
least  of  an  authentic  statement  of  the  facts  in  dispute. 
Had  these  been  spread  upon  the  record  and  submitted 
for  public  consideration,  it  could  hardly  be  other- 
wise than  that  recommendations  firm,  judicious  and 
reasonable,  based  theron,  would  have  sufficed  to 
remove  from  the  path  the  impediment  of  false  pride — 
that  stumbling  block  in  the  case  of  nine  strikes  out 
of  ten.  An  opportunity  of  gracefully  receding  would 
have  been  offered  to  one  or  both  parties  concerned. 
Should  either  party  have  insisted,  in  the  face  of 
light  and  reason,  the  responsibility  for  obstinate  in- 
sistence would  have  been  upon  its  head.  In  the 
United  States  public  opinion  has  in  such  cases  a  very 
summary,  as  well  as  effective,  way  of  enforcing  its 
own  process.  An  excellent  and  sufficient  example  of 
this  was  furnished  in  the  sudden  change  of  front  on 
the  part  of  one  of  the  parties  to  the  present  anthracite 
complication,  executed  in  the  face  of  a  rapidly  rising 
popular  sentiment.  Persistence  was  felt  to  involve 
too  much  risk.  It  would  be  so  in  the  great  mass  of 
these  cases.  They  are  pre vent ible.  But  what  is  wanted 
for  their  prevention  is  not  force,  but  light  and  guidance. 
This  generally  acknowledged  fact  to  the  contraary 
notwithstanding,  it  is  singular  to  note,  when  any  con- 
troversy arises,  how  such  a  method  of  settlement  as 
that  here  proposed  is  at  once  set  aside  as  being  inad- 
equate and  unworthy  of  consideration,  because  be- 
hind it  there  is  no  constable's  club  or  soldier's  bayonet. 
In  fact,  however,  the  word  "compulsion'1  has  an 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  67 

unpleasant  sound  to  Americans.  In  theory  only  is 
the  thing  itself  popular.  With  us  the  final  appeal 
must  always  be  to  reason;  and  public  opinion  en- 
forces the  edict  of  that  appeal.  In  every  field  of 
legislation  this  has  been  again  and  again  illustrated; 
and  yet  the  appeal  to  reason,  as  now  here  made, 
is  almost  as  invariably  as  contemptuously  dismissed 
from  consideration,  on  the  ground  that  there  is 
behind  it  no  force  to  compel  obedience. 

It  is  this  tendency  to  compulsion  against  which, 
I  submit,  it  is  the  especial  function  of  the  Civic 
Federation  to  protest.  We  should  lay  emphasis  on 
the  fact  that  our  appeal  is  to  reason,  and  not  to  force. 
The  difficulty  with  the  Federation  is  not  want  of 
power,  but  want  of  official  standing.  It  is  a  volunteer. 
At  no  time,  for  instance,  during  the  last  six  months 
could  it  enter  the  field  as  representing  the  Executive 
of  either  State  or  Nation;  and  had  it  entered  the 
field  on  its  own  initiative  only  it  would  have  been  in 
imminent  danger  of  incurring  the  contempt  not  only 
of  both  parties  to  the  controversy,  but  of  the  public 
itself.  It  has,  therefore,  been  compelled  to  inaction, 
— a  purely  waiting  attitude.  This  fact  in  itself  dis- 
closes a  want.  A  piece  of  machinery  is  lacking. 

But  it  is  argued  that  such  boards  already  exist,  and 
the  results  of  their  efforts  have  not  proved  satisfac- 
tory. This  assumption  I  deny,  and  on  broad  ground. 
When  such  large  interests  are  involved  as,  for  in- 
stance, in  the  strike  in  the  anthracite  coal  region,  rep- 
resented by  men  of  capacity  on  each  side,  to  deal  ef- 
fectively it  would  be  necessary  for  the  community  to 
have  the  power  of  availing  itself  of  the  services  of  the 


68  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

very  best  men,  and  those  of  the  highest  character  and 
authority  at  its  command.  If  it  speaks  at  all,  it 
should  speak  adequately.  If  in  June  it  had  been  the 
duty,  as  well  as  within  the  power,  of  the  President, 
or  of  the  Governor  of  Pennsylvania,  recognizing  that 
the  public  interests  and  convenience  were  involved, 
and  that  lasting  injuries  might  be  entailed,  to  take 
cognizance  of  the  situation  in-  the  anthracite  region, 
it  should,  under  the  system  proposed,  have  been  the 
duty  of  either  Executive  to  call  iipon  the  very  strong- 
est men  in  the  community — those  of  highest  char- 
acter and  most  intimately  acquainted  with  every 
condition  involved.  No  man  in  the  country  so 
called  upon  could  have  refused  to  serve;  yet  such 
men  will  not  accept,  nor  should  they  be  expected  to 
accept,  merely  salaried  positions,  permanent  in  char- 
acter, on  a  board  of  subordinate  importance. 

The  machinery  now  suggested  should,  moreover, 
be  reserved,  and  brought  into  action  only  in  special 
exigencies.  It  is  not  designed,  nor  is  it  adapted,  to 
everyday  use.  In  that  field  the  existing  boards  are 
doing  good  service,  and  doing  it  sufficiently  well;  but, 
for  obvious  reasons,  they  are  not  equal  to  the  ex- 
ceptional occasions.  They  occupy  the  positions  of 
municipal  courts;  but,  where  grave  problems  of  con- 
stitutional law  present  themselves,  such  are  not  re- 
ferred to  the  police  magistrates  for  decision,  nor  would 
the  decision  of  those  magistrates,  if  rendered  upon 
them,  carry  the  necessary  weight.  Exceptional 
cases  can  only  be  dealt  with  exceptionally.  For- 
tunately they  do  not  arise  often.  In  the  field  of 
labor  complcations,  for  instance,  two  only  have  oc- 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  69 

curred  during  the  last  eighteen  months.  But  they 
unquestionably  will  recur  periodically  in  the  future, 
and,  when  they  come,  their  presence  is  unmis- 
takable. It  would  then  be  for  the  executive,  state 
or  national,  to  take  cognizance  of  what  is  apparent, 
and  to  set  in  motion  the  special  machinery  designed 
and  held  in  reserve  for  that  exigency. 

It  is  equally  futile  to  say  that  the  parties  concerned , 
unconsenting  thereto,  might  decline  to  appear  before 
such  a  Commission.  In  such  case  the  Commission 
would  simply  proceed  with  its  inquiry  in  the  absence 
of  such  party  or  parties.  With  the  power  of  summon- 
ing witnesses  and  compelling  the  production  of  books, 
all  necessary  information  would  be  accessible  to  it. 
But  the  parties  could  not  refuse  to  appear.  They 
would  not  dare  to  refuse. 

Finally,  the  report  of  such  a  tribunal,  addressed  to 
its  appointing  power,  would  be  like  the  decision  of  a 
high  court  of  justice  on  an  abstract  point  of  consti- 
tutional law  of  the  first  magnitude.  Read  by  every 
one,  if  the  decision  were  weak,  or  bore  in  it  signs  of 
prejudice  or  interest,  it  would,  falling  dead,  fail  to  in- 
fluence public  opinion.  Equally,  if  handled  with  a 
firm  and  intelligent  grasp,  it  would  carry  conviction. 
That  conviction,  when  so  carried,  is  in  this  country 
irresistible.  It  in  the  end  makes  opposition  con- 
fessedly factious. 

The  trouble  with  us  is  that  we  are  always  prating 
of  the  force  of  public  opinion ;  but,  when  the  exigency 
arises,  we  evince  no  confidence  whatever  in  it.  Like 
a  parcel  of  children,  we  are  apt  to  cry  out  for  the 
master  to  come  in  and  enforce  instant  obedience  with 


70  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

the  rod.  I  submit  that  permanent  results  with  us  in 
America  are  not  reached  in  that  way.  Let  us  in  this 
matter  have  the  courage  of  our  convictions. 

I  have  already  expressed  my  belief  that,  if  such  a 
system  as  1  have  here  suggested  could  be  brought 
into  being  through  a  very  simple  act  of  legislation, 
which,  open  to  no  constitutional  or  other  objection, 
would  be  in  entire  accord  with  our  industrial  system, 
our  traditions  and  the  American  ideals,  it  would  set- 
the  nine  matters  of  controversy  which  arise  out  of  ten. 
I  now  further  submit  it  is  highly  desirable  from  every 
point  of  view  that  the  tenth  case  of  controversy  should 
not  be  settled,  but  should  be  fought  out.  In  the 
practical  affairs  of  life,  as  we  all  know,  it  is  necessary 
now  and  then  that  the  fight  should  be  to  a  finish.  Our 
own  civil  war  was  a  case  in  point.  No  arbitration 
ever  could  have  settled  that;  no  appeal  to  reason 
would  have  produced  conviction.  The  issue  had  to 
be  fought  to  the  bitter  end.  That  it  was  so  fought 
we  are  now  all  grateful,  though,  at  the  time,  the 
demand  was  loud  and  incessant  for  some  comprom- 
ise— any  close  to  the  "useless,  the  suicidal  strife." 
This  exceptional  case,  however, by  no  means  brought 
the  principles  of  arbitration  and  reasonable  adjust- 
ment into  discredit,  and  consequent  disuse.  On 
the  contrary,  they  have  grown  stronger  ever  since, 
securing  more  and  more  hold  on  public  opinion. 
What  is  necessary,  in  my  judgment,  is  to  organize 
that  public  opinion,  and,  when  organized  and  made 
effective,  to  rely  on  it  to  produce  all  desirable  results 
in  the  average  case.  But  it  can  only  be  organized 
by  bringing  it  to  bear  through  the  medium  of  capable 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  ?I 

men,  thoroughly  informed  upon  the  special  matter 
under  discussion,  and  competent  to  express  courag- 
eous opinions  clearly.  The  tribunal  doing  this  should 
then  dissolve.  It  should  not  continue  in  existence, 
the  target  for  criticism,  partisan  discussion  and  pop- 
ular odium.  Should  a  new  case  arise,  another  trib- 
unal of  a  similar  character  would  at  the  proper  time 
be  called  into  being  to  deal  with  it  in  its  turn. 

Sound  and  fruitful  legislation  cannot,  moreover, 
be  improvised.  It  is  idle  to  talk  in  language  as  empty 
as  it  is  grandiose,  of  "curbing,"  or  regulating  by  any 
patented  method,  potentates  and  powers  of  such 
large,  and  yet  vague,  character  as  those  that  labor 
and  capital  are  now  continually  bringing  into  the 
field.  A  governmental  regulation  which  shall  deal 
satisfactorily  with  them  must  rest  upon  a  broad  and 
well-considered  basis  of  experience.  It  would  be  the 
natural  outcome  of  a  series  of  reports  of  tribunals 
such  as  that  suggested.  It  is  equally  futile  to  sup- 
pose that  this  labor  contest  in  which  we  have  been 
engaged,  and  of  which  we  have  so  long  experienced 
the  inconvenient  results,  is  going  to  be  settled  in  a 
day  or  an  hour,  or  next  year,  or  within  the  next  ten 
years.  It  will  continue  with  us  during  the  remainder 
of  our  lives,  and  with  our  children  after  us;  but  we 
will  slowly  and  tentatively  approximate  to  satis- 
factory results.  Under  these  circumstances  if  a 
solution,  represented  by  a  proper  legislative  and 
administrative  machinery,  is  ever  to  be  evolved,  it 
must  be  evolved  from  a  series  of  wearisome  investi- 
gations and  reports  thereon,  no  less  judicial  and  well 
considered  than  that  body  of  great  opinions  from 


7  2  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

which  the  present  constitution  of  the  United  States 
has  been  slowly  built  up  and  rounded  out. 

In  the  case  of  the  national  Executive,  some  ques 
tion  has  been  raised  as  to  its  functions  and  powers,  in 
view  of  our  constitutional  system  and  the  reserved 
rights  of  the  States.  I  cannot,  however,  see  that  this 
enters  into  the  present  question,  or  what  is  now  pro- 
posed. It  is  certainly  the  duty  of  the  President  to 
inform  himself  upon  all  questions  relating  to  the 
carriage  of  the  mails,  and  to  the  movement  of  com- 
merce, whether  foreign  or  interstate.  Questions  of 
revenue  are  involved ;  questions  affecting  the  trans- 
portation of  material,  men  and  supplies  may  be  in- 
volved. To  inform  himself  he  should  be  empowered 
to  appoint  agencies  competent  to  investigate  and 
report  thereon.  It  is  not  now  proposed  to  clothe 
him  with  any  power  in  these  exigencies,  except  that 
of  receiving  a  report,  forwarding  it  to  the  parties  in- 
volved, together  with  his  own  recommendations, 
and  then  submitting  the  same  to  Congress.  To  give 
the  President  power  to  intervene  by  any  executive 
act  of  a  compulsory  character  would,  in  my  opinion, 
jeopardize  at  the  beginning  every  desirable  ultimate 
result  of  the  experiment  proposed.  Congressional 
action  is  always  in  reserve;  but  even  Congressional 
action  ought  to  be  intelligent,  and  to  be  intelli- 
gent it  should  be  well  considered — based  on  a  con- 
siderable body  of  facts,  judicially  ascertained.  The 
judicial  ascertainment  of  facts  and  the  study  of 
principles  involved  therein,  is,  therefore,  what  the 
occasion  immediately  demands.  Sound  remedial 
legislation  will  in  due  time  result  therefrom.  But 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  73 

at  present  the  chances  are  enormous  that  crude  and 
precipate  effort  at  a  compulsory  betterment  of  exist- 
ing conditions  would  only  make  what  is  already  quite 
sufficiently  bad,  distinctly  worse. 

As  the  result  of  my  conversations  with  Colonel 
Wright  and  Mr.  Lodge,  I  have  undertaken  to  draw 
up  a  single  act,  in  few  sections,  based  upon  the  fore- 
going principles  and  looking  to  the  results  indicated. 
It  could  be  passed,  mutatis  mutatidis,  by  any  State 
Legislature  or  by  Congress.  It  would  contravene 
no  constitutional  provision  or  private  right,  but 
simply  secure  to  the  community — the  third  party 
involved  in  every  controversy  of  this  sort  of  any 
magnitude — the  right  to  get  at  the  facts  in  dispute  ; 
and,  after  so  doing,  to  bring  to  bear  an  intelligent 
pressure  of  its  own,  looking  to  a  reasonable  solution 
of  troubles  sure,  hereafter,  to  arise.  Such  an  act  has 
accordingly  been  prepared,  and  is  subjoined  hereto. 


AN  ACT  TO  PROVIDE  FOR  THE  INVESTIGA- 
TION OF  CONTROVERSIES  AFFECTING  IN- 
TERSTATE COMMERCE  AND  FOR  OTHER 
PURPOSES. 

Be  it  enacted  by  ike  Senate  and  House  of  Representa- 
tives of  the  United  States  oj  America  in  Congress 
assembled: 

SECTION  i.  That  whenever  within  any  State  or 
States,  Territory  or  Territories  of  the  United  States 
a  controversy  concerning  wages,  hours  of  labor  or 
conditions  of  employment  shall  arise  between  an 
employer  being  an  individual,  partnership,  associa- 
tion, corporation  or  other  combination,  and  the 
employees  or  association  or  combination  of  em- 
ployees of  such  employer,  by  reason  of  which  con- 
troversy the  transportation  of  the  United  States 
mails,  the  operations,  civil  or  military,  of  the  Gov- 
ernment of  the  United  States,  or  the  free  and  regular 
movement  of  commerce  among  the  several  States 
and  with  foreign  nations  is  in  the  judgment  of  the 
President  interrupted  or  directly  affected,  or  threat- 
ened with  being  so  interrupted  or  directly  affected, 
the  President  shall,  in  his  discretion,  inquire  into  the 
same  and  investigate  the  causes  thereof. 

SECTION  2.  To  this  end  the  President  may  appoint 

74 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  75 

a  special  commission,  not  exceeding  seven  in  number, 
of  persons  in  his  judgment  specially  qualified  to 
conduct  such  an  investigation. 

SECTION  3.  Such  Commission  shall  organize  with 
all  convenient  despatch,  and  upon  giving  reasonable 
notice  to  the  parties  to  the  controversy,  either  at  the 
seat  of  disturbance  or  elsewhere,  as  it  may  deem  most 
expedient,  shall  proceed  to  investigate  the  causes  of 
such  controversy  and  the  remedy  therefor. 

SECTION  4.  The  parties  to  the  controversy  shall  be 
entitled  to  be  present  in  person  or  by  counsel  through- 
out the  continuation  of  the  investigation,  and  shall 
be  entitled  to  a  hearing  thereon,  subject  always  to 
such  rules  of  procedure  as  the  Commission  may 
adopt;  but  nothing  in  this  section  contained  shall 
be  construed  as  entitling  said  parties  to  be  present 
during  the  proceedings  of  the  Commission  prior  to 
or  after  the  completion  of  their  investigation. 

SECTION  5.  For  the  purpose  of  this  act,  the  Com- 
mission, or  any  one  Commissioner,  shall  have  power 
to  administer  oaths  and  affirmations,  to  sign  sub; 
pcenas,  to  require  the  testimony  of  witnesses  either 
by  attendance  in  person  or  by  deposition,  and  to 
require  the  production  of  such  books,  papers,  con- 
tracts, agreements  and  documents  as  may  be  deemed 
material  to  a  just  determination  of  the  matters 
under  investigation ;  and  to  this  end  the  Commission 
may  invoke  the  aid  of  the  courts  of  the  United  States 
to  compel  witnesses  to  attend  and  testify  and  to  pro- 
duce such  books,  papers,  contracts,  agreements,  and 
documents;  and  for  the  purposes  of  this  section  it 
shall  be  vested  with  the  same  powers,  to  the  same 


76  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE 

extent  and  under  the  same  conditions  and  penalties, 
as  are  vested  in  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commis- 
sion by  the  Act  to  regulate  commerce,  approved 
February  4th,  1887,  and  the  Acts  amendatory  and 
in  addition  thereto;  and  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the 
said  courts  of  the  United  States  to  render  said  Com- 
mission the  same  aid  to  the  same  extent  and  under 
the  same  conditions  as  is  provided  by  said  Acts  in 
aid  of  said  Interstate  Commerce  Commission;  and 
witnesses  examined  as  aforesaid  shall  be  subject  to 
the  same  duties  and  entitled  to  the  same  immunities 
as  is  provided  in  said  Acts. 

SECTION  6.  For  the  purposes  of  this  Act  the  Com- 
mission may,  whenever  it  deems  it  expedient,  enter 
and  inspect  any  public  institution,  factory,  workshop, 
or  mine,  and  may  employ  one  or  more  competent 
experts  to  examine  accounts,  books  or  official  re- 
ports, or  to  examine  and  report  on  any  matter 
material  to  the  investigation,  in  which  such  exam- 
ination and  report  may  be  deemed  of  substantial 
assistance. 

SECTION  7.  Having  made  such  investigation  and 
elicited  such  information  of  all  the  facts  connected 
with  the  controversy  into  which  they  were  ap- 
pointed to  inquire,  the  Commission  shall  formulate 
its  report  thereon,  setting  forth  the  causes  of  the  same, 
locating  so  far  as  may  be  the  responsibility  therefor, 
and  making  such  specific  recommendations  as  shall 
in  its  judgment  put  an  end  to  such  controversy  or 
disturbance  and  prevent  a  recurrence  thereof,  sur- 
gesting  any  legislation  which  the  case  may  seem  to 
require. 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


77 


SECTION  8.  The  report  of  such  commission  shall 
forthwith  be  transmitted  to  the  President  and  by 
him  communicated,  together  with  such  portions  of 
the  evidence  elicited  and  any  comments  or  further 
recommendation  he  may  see  fit  to  make,  to  the 
principal  parties  responsible  for  the  controversy  or 
involved  therein;  and  the  papers  shall  be  duly 
transmitted  to  Congress  for  its  information  and 
action. 

SECTION  9.  The  Commission  may,  from  time  to 
time,  make  or  amend  such  general  rules  or  orders  as 
may  be  deemed  appropriate  for  the  order  and  regu- 
lation of  its  investigations  and  proceedings,  includ- 
ing forms  of  notices  and  the  service  thereof,  which 
shall  conform  as  nearly  as  may  be  to  those  in  use  in 
the  courts  of  the  United  States. 

SECTION  10.  The  President  is  authorized  and  em- 
powered to  fix  a  reasonable  compensation  to  be  paid 
to  the  members  of  the  Commission  from  the  Treasury 
at  such  times  and  in  such  manner  as  he  shall  direct. 
The  Commission  shall  have  authority  to  employ  and 
fix  the  compensation  of  such  employees  as  it  may 
find  necessary  to  the  proper  performance  of  its  duties, 
subject  to  the  approval  of  the  Secretary  of  the  In- 
terior. 

The  Commission  shall  be  furnished  by  the  Secre- 
tary of  the  Interior  with  suitable  offices  and  all 
necessary  office  supplies.  Witnesses  summoned  be- 
fore the  Commission  shall  be  paid  the  same  fees  and 
mileage  that  are  paid  to  witnesses  in  the  courts  of 
the  United  States. 

All  of  the  expenses  of  the  Commission,  including 


78  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

all  necessary  expenses  for  transportation  incurred 
by  the  Commissioners  or  by  their  employees  under 
their  orders,  in  making  any  investigation  under  this 
Act,  shall  be  allowed  and  paid,  on  the  presentation 
of  itemized  vouchers  therefor  approved  by  the  Chair- 
man of  the  Commission  and  the  Secretary  of  the  In- 
terior. 

SECTION  n.  No  Commission  appointed  under  this 
Act  shall  continue  for  a  period  of  over  three  months 
from  the  date  of  the  appointment  thereof,  unless  at 
any  time  before  the  expiration  of  such  period  the 
President  shall  otherwise  order. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  As  this  question  of  arbitration  is 
now  up,  I  will  call  upon  Mr.  John  McMackin,  State 
Labor  Commissioner  of  New  York  State. 

MR.  MCMACKIN:  Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen — 
During  the  last  eighteen  months,  through  the  con- 
solidation of  the  different  labor  bureaus  of  this  State 
into  the  Department  of  Labor,  it  has  been  my  for- 
tune to  have  had  some  little  connection  with  the 
strikes  in  New  York  State.  I  found  that  one  of  the 
greatest  obstacles  to  the  settlement  of  strikes  was 
the  refusal  of  employers  either  to  recognize  the  right 
of  the  employees  to  organize,  or  to  treat  with  them 
as  an  organization.  This  is  particularly  so  in  the 
small  towns  of  New  York  State,  and  it  is  so  with 
newly  organized  railroads,  such  as  our  trolley  lines. 
It  applies  in  some  cases  to  firms  conducted  by  what 
are  termed  trusts.  I  have  in  mind  the  case  of  a  firm 
or  so-called  trust,  where  the  men  were  working  eleven 
hours  a  day.  They  went  out  on  strike  for  a  reduc- 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  79 

tion  of  hours,  and  we  took  every  means  possible  to 
bring  about  an  understanding,  when  finally  the  com- 
pany informed  us  that  if  the  men  did  not  return  to 
work  the  company  would  simply  close  the  factory 
and  transfer  the  work  to  another  place,  which  would 
have  practically  meant  the  ruin  of  that  locality. 
The  result  was  that  these  people  had  to  submit  and 
go  to  work.  I  had  another  case  in  one  of  the  southern 
tier  counties,  connected  in  the  same  way  as  the  other 
cases  that  I  have  referred  to,  and  they,  for  some  reason j 
refused  to  treat  with  their  men  and  threatened  to 
shut  down  the  business. 

The  influence  of  this  Federation  has  been  of  im- 
mense advantage  and  benefit  to  officers  of  the  State 
whose  business  it  is  to  bring  about  amicable  relations, 
because  it  has  influenced  employer  and  employee  to 
think  of  their  relations  to  one  another.  I  may  cite 
a  case  to  you  to  show  how  a  community  suffers  by 
the  misunderstanding  and  obstinacy  of  the  officers  of 
a  corporation,  in  three  counties  of  this  State  there 
was  a  protracted  strike  on  a  trolley  railroad,  tying 
up  all  means  of  communication  for  four  or  five 
months.  We  tried  to  bring  about  an  understanding 
with  the  president  of  the  company  and  its  counsel, 
but  they  said,  "No;  we  don't  intend  to  treat  with 
these  people.  We  intend  to  wipe  out  whatever  there 
is  of  a  union  here."  "Well,"  said  I,  "my  friends," 
you  may  wipe  it  out,  but  what  comes  after?"  The 
result  was  the  sheriffs  of  these  three  counties  ordered 
out  the  militia.  The  road  ran  about  eighty  miles 
through  a  wild  country  that  it  was  impossible  to  pro- 
tect. It  has  cost  those  three  counties  some  $48,000 


8o  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

for  the  maintenance  of  the  militia.  And,  after  all 
this  trouble,  the  company  finally  settled  the  matter. 
The  original  cause  of  the  trouble  was  the  discharge  of 
a  man  whom  the  company  had  accused  of  running 
a  freight  car  at  such  a  rapid  pace  as  to  collide  with 
a  passenger  car,  though  no  one  was  hurt  thereby. 
After  the  strike  was  over,  the  company  investigated 
the  discharge  of  this  man,  and  last  week  reinstated 
him,  admitting  that  there  was  no  real  cause  for  all 
that  strike.  Now  you  can  see  the  .difference.  Work- 
ingmen  are  abused  and  charged  with  being  senseless, 
reckless,  etc.,  but  here  men  representing  large  in- 
terests jeopardized  not  alone  their  own  interests,  but 
put  the  people  to  all  this  trouble  and  unnecessary 
expense. 

Now,  I  have  listened  with  a  great  deal  of  pleasure 
and  delight  to  the  very  able  and  instructive  paper 
of  Mr.  Adams,  and  I  must  say  that  I  feel  much  as  Mr. 
Adams  does.  But  I  would  call  to  Mr.  Adams'  at- 
tention the  fact  that  he  is  treating  of  conditions  prev- 
alent twenty-five  years  ago.  At  that  time  there  were 
not  the  gigantic  industrial  corporations  and  com- 
binations that  exist  to-day.  What  was  possible 
twenty-five  years  ago  is  no  longer  possible  under  our 
industrial  system.  As  to  the  possibility  of  obtaining 
data  from  corporations,  let  me  tell  Mr.  Adams  that 
it  is  well-nigh  impossible.  Colonel  Wright  could  in- 
form him  that  during  the  taking  of  the  census  of 
1890  there  were  several  of  the  largest  industrial  cor- 
porations of  the  country  that  absolutely  refused  to 
answer  the  questions  of  the  Federal  Government  for 
use  in  the  census.  When  Colonel  Wright  took  the 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  81 

work  in  hand  he  found  that  even  under  the  law  he 
could  not  compel  them  to  answer  these  questions. 
And  that  is  the  reason  why  to-day  some  drastic 
means  are  required  whereby  the  public  may  obtain 
that  general  knowledge  so  essential  if  we  are  not  to 
fail  even  in  our  industrial  movements  for  peace. 
Before  we  reach  the  employee  and  his  dealings  with 
the  employer,  how  are  we  to  arrive  at  an  understand- 
ing as  to  what  is  the  income,  what  are  the  earnings 
of  a  corporation,  unless  we  know  the  actual  capital 
invested  and  the  income  and  earnings  on  that  capi- 
tal? Our  Board  of  Mediation  and  Arbitration  in 
New  York  State  is  clothed  with  all  the  power  that 
Mr.  Adams  proposes,  and  yet,  I  regret  to  say,  that 
power  has  been  found  inadequate.  Some  twelve 
years  ago,  I  think,  there  was  an  extensive  strike  on 
the  New  York  Central  Railroad.  The  Board  at  that 
time  was  composed  of  one  Democrat,  one  Republi- 
can, and  one  member  supposed  to  represent  organized 
labor.  The  Board  was  clothed  with  absolute  power 
to  investigate  the  earnings  of  the  Central  Railroad 
and  to  report  on  it  to  the  public.  As  a  matter  of 
fact,  that  Board  voted  not  to  investigate  the  Central 
Railroad,  not  to  call  for  its  papers,  and  thus  the  pub- 
lic were  left  in  the  dark  as  to  the  real  merits  of  the 
strike.  But  I  am  glad  to  see  that  Mr.  Adams  wisely 
dispenses  with  permanent  boards  of  arbitration  under 
governmental  control.  It  is  the  wisest  thing  pos- 
sible if  we  were  to  adopt  that  course  in  settling  dis- 
putes, that  as  the  crisis  arises  so  should  the  commis- 
sion be  appointed  to  deal  with  the  specific  case.  But, 
preceding  that,  there  must  be  some  method  whereby 


82  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

the  public  may  understand  the  status  of  a  cor- 
poration. All  the  troubles  affecting  the  industrial 
world  to-day  arise  principally  from  newly  organized 
men.  There  is  very  little  trouble,  if  you  take  the 
country  over,  in  the  skilled  trades  that  are  well  or- 
ganized. When  gigantic  strikes  occur,  such  as  oc- 
curred in  the  anthracite  coal  district  and  such  as 
occur  on  railroads,  it  is  a  great  question,  a  question 
not  even  clear  in  my  own  mind,  whether  the  interests 
of  the  people  are  not  paramount  in  such  crises;  and 
whether  it  is  not  their  right  to  say  to  two  contending 
parties,  "You  submit  this  matter  to  us";  because  it 
is  the  public  that  is  concerned;  it  is  their  business 
that  is  stopped.  What  reason,  in  God's  name,  when 
you  reason  it  out,  had  these  men  in  Pennsylvania  in 
denying  the  right  to  arbitrate,  to  stop  the  supply  of 
what  God  placed  there  in  the  earth  for  His  children, 
simply  because  they  would  not  agree  to  arbitrate  the 
simple  question  of  wages  or  hours  ?  Morally,  they  had 
no  right,  and,  if  a  thing  is  not  morally  right,  it  cannot 
be  right  at  all.  When  workingmen  read  statements 
like  those  credited  to  Mr.  Baer,  they  are  liable  to 
make  a  great  deal  of  trouble.  When  Mr.  Baer 
singles  himself  out  as  placed  there  by  Divine  Provi- 
dence to  dispense  God's  bounties,  don't  you  know 
that  it  starts  a  great  many  men  thinking  and  wonder- 
ing if  this  is  all  a  fallacy — this  brotherhood  of  man 
and  this  Fatherhood  of  God — and  that  that  thinking 
bodes  no  good  to  what  are  regarded  as  vested  rights  ? 
It  is  because  men  do  not  comprehend  their  true  re- 
lations, their  interdependence  in  this  world,  that  all 
these  troubles  arise.  We  feel  them  more  here  in 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  83 

America  because  we  progress  faster.  We  shall  have 
to  settle  them  in  advance  of  any  other  nation  because 
of  our  advance  and  our  progress.  And  it  is  only  by 
the  method  wisely  taken  by  the  leaders  of  capital 
and  by  the  leaders  of  the  large  labor  organizations  in 
this  Civic  Federation  that  we  shall  be  able  to  arrive 
at  any  satisfactory  settlements  of  this  industrial 
problem.  Mr.  Adams  seems  to  think  that  this 
struggle  will  be  interminable — will  go  on  forever. 
I  can  scarcely  think  so.  Out  of  these  discussions, 
this  fraternization  of  employer  and  employee,  and 
the  ever-increasing  desire  for  justice  among  men  some 
means  will  be  found  in  the  not  far  distant  future  by 
which  man  will  reap  the  natural  result  of  his  labor. 
It  may  be  by  profit-sharing  or  by  a  system  of  indus- 
trial co-operation.  I  think  Mr.  Abram  S.  Hewitt  ad- 
vanced this  solution  of  the  trust  problem  a  couple 
of  years  ago,  and  there  are  very  few  public  men  who 
have  given  such  intelligent  attention  to  economic 
questions  as  Mr.  Hewitt  has.  But,  for  the  present, 
the  great  essential  thing  is  to  preserve  industrial 
peace  in  this  country  until  we  can  arrive  at  a  satis- 
factory solution  of  the  whole  problem.  I  heartily 
agree  with  Mr.  Adams'  proposition,  with  the  simple 
proviso  that  it  woiild  be  useless  unless  Congress  and 
the  several  States  took  some  definite  action  com- 
pelling publicity  of  the  actual  business  of  industrial 
corporations. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  In  closing,  I  am  going  to  ask  to 
hear  from  one  of  our  guests  from  the  other  side,  and 
call  on  Mr.  Barnes,  who  is  connected  with  the  Society 
of  Engineers  of  England. 


84  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

MR.  G.  N.  BARNES:  Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen 
— Your  somewhat  unexpected  call  on  me  to  address 
a  few  observations  to  this  distinguished  audience 
finds  me  unprepared  to  do  so  as  effectively 
as  I  could  wish.  And  moreover,  I  remember  Mr. 
Mosely's  opening  observations  this  morning,  with 
which  I  perfectly  agree,  that  the  appropriate  attitude 
for  us  here  upon  this  occasion  is  one  of  modest  listen- 
ing to  what  goes  on.  We  are  here,  sir,  not  to  identify 
ourselves  with  this  Civic  Federation,  but  rather  to 
ascertain  the  facts  in  regard  to  the  Civic  Federation 
and  ascertain  the  facts  generally  in  regard  to  your 
social  and  industrial  life  in  this  country,  with  a  view 
to  reporting  on  the  other  side,  and  with  a  view,  fur- 
thermore, of  adopting  on  the  other  side  what  seems 
to  us  would  be  of  mutual  advantage  to  both  em- 
ployer and  employed.  With  your  permission,  I  de- 
sire to  cover  in  the  few  minutes  that  I  shall  occupy 
your  time  somewhat  of  the  ground  that  was 
covered  this  morning  by  Mr.  Mosely.  And  the 
reason  why  I  want  to  do  that  is  because,  although 
no  doubt  Mr.  Mosely  has  given  you  a  truthful  and 
honest  statement  of  his  impressions,  I  found,  un- 
fortunately, that  that  statement  did  not  coincide 
with  all  my  impressions,  and  I  am  sure  Mr.  Mosely 
will  accord  to  me  the  right  of  stating  what  I  have 
seen,  the  impressions  that  I  have  found,  in  regard  to 
one  or  more  points  mentioned. 

First  of  all,  I  want  to  identify  myself  in  the  full- 
est possible  degree  with  what  was  said  by  Mr.  Mosely 
as  to  the  uniform  courtesy  and  kindness  which  I 
have  met  with  at  all  times.  Mr.  Maddison  of  the 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  85 

Iron  Founders'  Society,  and  myself,  separated  from 
the  main  body  of  the  commission  at  Chicago,  and 
since  that  time  we  have  traveled  I  think  somewhere 
about  3,000  miles  over  your  railways.  We  have 
interviewed,  I  think  I  would  be  within  the  mark  in 
saying,  some  hundreds  of  workmen,  foremen,  man- 
agers and  other  people,  from  the  president  down- 
wards, and  we  have  met  with  the  greatest  amount 
of  courtesy  and  consideration  from  every  single  one, 
and  the  utmost  facilities  have  been  given  us  for 
seeing  what  we  wished  to  see  and  for  forming  re- 
liable opinions  as  to  what  came  under  our  observa- 
tion. So  that  it  was  perfectly  obvious  to  us  that 
whatever  may  be  the  fact  as  to  the  improved  meth- 
ods— or  shall  I  say  rather  the  different  methods — pre- 
vailing on  this  side  to  the  other  side,  that  you  on  this 
side  feel  that  you  have  nothing  to  fear  in  showing  us 
all  that  we  want  to  know.  We  appreciate  highly 
that  kindness,  and  we  hope  that,  if  at  any  time  a 
similar  delegation  should  come  from  this  side  of  the 
water,  we  shall  have  the  opportunity  of  showing 
our  appreciation  of  it. 

Another  point  with  which  I  was  in  hearty  agree- 
ment with  Mr.  Mosely  was  in  regard  to  that  point— 
and  here  I  am  only  giving  voice  to  my  personal 
opinion,  which  I  always  do  anywhere,  and  possibly 
I  may  not  speak  for  some  of  my  colleagues  or  for 
the  trades  union  movement  on  the  other  side,  but 
I  am  going  to  give  you  my  own  opinion — Mr.  Mosely 
contended  that  every  man  had  a  right  to  choose  as 
to  whether  he  should  be  a  union  man  and  as  to 
whether  he  should  belong  to  one  union  or  another. 


86  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

I  absolutely  agree  with  that  sentiment.  I  have 
never  in  my  own  union  used  my  influence  or  raised 
my  hand  to  force  or  bring  coercion  to  bear  in  any 
shape  or  form  on  any  man  to  join  the  union  of  the 
engineers,  and  I  never  will.  (Applause.)  I  believe 
in  the  force  of  moral  suasion;  I  believe  in  having 
behind  me,  if  I  have  an  army  at  all,  an  army  of  will- 
ing men,  of  colleagues  and  co-operators  instead  of 
forced  men.  And  I  know  that  if  I  had  a  number 
of  forced  men  behind  me  the  probability  is  that  I 
would  find  they  were  no  good  when  the  pinch 
came. 

Now  to  take  up  those  points  on  which  I  was  not 
altogether  in  agreement,  either  as  to  the  facts  or 
deductions  of  Mr.  Mosely.  Mr.  Mosely  stated  that 
as  far  as  he  could  gather  on  this  side  piece-work  was 
more  general  than  on  the  other  side.  And  further, 
so  far  as  I  could  gather,  he  gave  piece-work  an  un- 
qualified endorsement  and  approval.  As  far  as  I 
can  ascertain — I  do  not  profess  to  have  the  knowl- 
edge of  to  what  extent  piece-work  obtains  on  this 
side  in  all  industries — I  should  be  very  much  sur- 
prised to  find  that  piece-work  obtains  on  this  side 
more,  taking  all  industries,  than  it  does  on  our  side, 
where  piece-work  is  the  recognized  system  of  pay- 
ment in  something  like,  if  my  memory  serves  me 
right — I  am  not  far  out  at  all  events — some  five- 
eighths  of  the  whole  of  the  organized  workers  of 
Great  Britain.  In  my  own  industry  on  this  side  of 
the  water  I  find  that  piece-work  is  very  little  more, 
if  any  more,  in  vogue  than  on  the  other  side.  So 
much  for  the  facts.  In  regard  to  piece-work  and 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  87 

the  attitude  of  trades  unionism  and  organized  labor 
upon  it,  I  should  say  that  we  have  no  objection  to 
working  piece-work  as  such,  and  that  the  intro- 
duction of  piece-work  is  very  largely  a  question  of 
the  surrounding  circumstances  and  the  object  with 
which  piece-work  is  to  be  introduced.  I  have  seen 
within  this  last  week  a  workshop  organized  in  this 
country  under  piece-work  conditions  where  the 
sanitary  arrangements  were  disgusting;  where  the 
workmen  were  poor,  timid,  spiritless  looking  creat- 
ures, the  very  aspect  of  whom  told  me  they  were 
afraid  to  call  their  souls  their  own;  where  the  work- 
shop was  congested  and  dirty,  and  in  every  way 
unfit  to  work  in.  And  I  am  thoroughly  convinced 
that  that  state  of  affairs  was  brought  about  because 
of  the  system  of  contract  piece-work  in  that  shop; 
where  the  work  was  undertaken  to  be  done  by  cer- 
tain men  who  contracted  for  it  and  then  employed 
boys  and  youths  and  specialists,  who  were  cut  down 
at  the  behest  of  the  contractor  until  there  is  noth- 
ing more  left  to  cut  out  from  them,  and  the  shop  is 
in  the  condition  I  have  given  you.  Here  then  the 
attitude  of  organized  labor  should  be  to  see  that  in 
introducing  piece-work  into  any  shop  that  at  all 
events  the  general  conditions  that  obtained  before, 
the  payment  of  the  ordinary  rate  of  standard  wages, 
of  special  payment  for  Sundays  and  holidays  or 
other  special  occasions,  should  all  be  maintained, 
and  that  piece-work  is  not  going  to  be  introduced 
merely  for  the  purpose  of  substituting  individual 
for  that  collective  bargaining  that  had  previously 
obtained.  That,  in  so  far  as  it  relates  to  piece-work, 


88  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

is  the  view  that  I  entertain  and  the  view  I  believe 
of  organized  labor  on  the  other  side. 

Again,  in  regard  to  machinery.  I  have  not  found 
here  on  this  side  any  man  working  eight  machines. 
I  have  found  just  the  same  as  on  our  side,  that  certain 
machines  into  which  you  can  put  a  piece  of  iron  and 
it  is  gobbled  up  in  an  automatic  way,  fed  forward 
when  a  piece  is  cut  off  and  therefore  needs  no  at- 
tention— I  have  found  that  such  machines  as  those 
are  tended  sometimes  by  a  boy,  and  sometimes  half 
a  dozen  by  a  man  with  a  boy  to  help  him.  Exactly 
the  same  thing  obtains  on  our  side.  And  I  can  see 
but  very  little  difference  in  the  use  of  machinery, 
so  far  as  one  machine  to  one  man  obtains.  I  have 
found,  however,  a  general  application  of  scientific 
knowledge.  I  have  found  a  more  general  application 
of  the  latest  appliances  and  the  best  style  tools 
that  can  be  had;  and  therefore  a  considerably  larger 
product  out  of  the  machines  than  on  our  side.  That 
is  a  matter  that  we  might  copy  with  advantage  and 
which  I  mean  to  tell  our  people  on  the  other  side. 

Well,  now,  coming  to  the  point  of  the  discussion, 
Mr.  Chairman,  and  you  will  pardon  me  for  this  long 
digression,  let  me  say  that  I  am  heartily  in  favor 
of  the  principle  advocated  by  Mr.  Adams,  that  is, 
the  principle  of  reason  and  enlightenment  in  in- 
dustrial disputes.  We  have  got  together  now  in 
organization.  Employers  are  organized,  working- 
men  are  organized,  and  I  am  inclined  to  think  that 
employer  and  employed  are  more  disposed  now  to 
respect  each  other  than  ever  they  were  before. 
Strikes,  I  believe,  and  lockouts  have  been  necessary 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE,  89 

in  times  gone  by  and  have  fulfilled  a  useful  purpose. 
They  have  taught  each  side  to  respect  the  other  and 
they  have  impressed  the  public  at  large  with  a  sense 
of  the  seriousness  of  the  labor  problem.  But  now 
that  labor  and  capital  are  both  organized  it  seems 
to  me  that  there  is  afforded  an  opportunity  on  both 
sides  to  bring  the  largest  amount  of  common  sense, 
we  will  say  to  develop  the  conscience  both  on  the 
part  of  the  employer  and  employed,  and  so  bring 
the  common  sense  of  the  employer  or  employed 
organization  to  deal  with  unscrupulous  individuals 
either  on  one  side  or  the  other.  On  our  side  of  the 
water  we  have  found  that  employer  and  employed 
have  met  together,  and,  as  the  Archbishop  pointed 
out  this  afternoon,  the  very  fact  of  bringing  men 
face  to  face  with  one  another  tends  in  a  very  large 
extent  to  minimize  the  difficulty  between  them. 
Each  recognizes  that  the  other  has  rights.  Each 
recognizes  that  the  other  has  difficulties,  and  there- 
fore in  bringing  them  together  a  very  great  deal  has 
been  done  to  bring  reason  and  justice  in  and  to  put 
passion  and  prejudice  out,  and  in  that  way  a  very 
great  deal  has  been  done  to  raise  labor  questions 
from  the  low  plane  of  animal  and  physical  contests 
on  to  the  higher  plane  of  reason  and  justice  and 
common  sense.  Now  here  comes  in  the  point  of 
the  paper,  as  I  understand  it.  Labor  is  organized 
and  capital  is  organized.  As  has  been  pointed  out 
by  Mr.  Adams,  the  very  fact  of  one  or  the  other  ap- 
plying for  any  public  authority  or  any  one  else  to 
intervene  between  them  is  taken  as  an  indication 
of  weakness  either  on  one  side  or  the  other.  Never- 


9o 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


theless  all  the  time,  as  has  already  been  pointed  out 
by  Mr.  Adams  also,  the  very  fact  of  their  being  or- 
ganized implies  that  each  is  in  a  position  to  inflict 
a  greater  amount  of  injury  upon  the  community 
than  they  had  otherwise  been  able  to  do.  Therefore 
that  brings  in  the  community  as  one  of  the  parties 
and  I  should  say  in  some  disputes  almost  the  first 
party  to  the  dispute,  and  therefore  brings  in  the 
community  as  a  party  having  the  right  to  intervene 
and  the  right  to  say  that  at  all  events  some  ma- 
chinery shall  be  set  in  motion  with  a  view  of  bringing 
the  dispute  to  a  termination.  Now  what  is  that 
to  be?  I  was  one  of  a  committee  recently  on  be- 
half of  the  Federation  of  Labor  on  the  other  side 
which  discussed  this  matter.  We  brought  in  a 
report  and  recommendations,  which  have  not  been 
adopted,  but  which  nevertheless  I  believe  in  at  the 
present  time.  It  may  not  be  applicable  on  this  side, 
but  I  believe  would  be  on  the  other.  I  say  that 
wherever  a  strike  or  a  lockout  has  taken  place  an 
injury  is  inflicted  upon  the  community  in  that 
place.  Why  not  have  the  right  given  to  the  public 
authorities  in  that  district,  the  local  governing 
body,  to  apply  to  a  central  authority?  This  central 
authority  should  then  set  up  a  commission  of  in- 
quiry, with  a  view  of  publishing  the  results.  I  don't 
know  how  you  would  interpret  that  here,  but  we 
well  know  how  that  is  meant  on  the  other  side.  I 
take  it  that  is  what  Mr.  Adams  means,  for  the  cen- 
tral body  to  have  some  authority  which  could  be 
sent  down  into  the  district  to  call  upon  each  side  to 
ascertain  in  an  investigation — to  call  upon  each  side 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  91 

to  submit  the  whole  facts  in  regard  to  the  situation 
and  thereby  to  form  public  opinion  as  to  the  merits 
or  demerits  of  the  dispute.  I  believe  that  is  a  step 
that  might  be  taken  with  very  great  advantage. 
I  believe  that  that  is  a  step  that  the  public  ultimately 
will  have  to  take  in  its  own  interest.  Whether  it 
may  be  desirable  to  go  further  than  that  in  the 
course  of  time  is  in  the  lap  of  the  gods.  I  do  not 
know.  I  am  inclined  to  think  myself  that  if  the 
proper  authority  were  in  a  few  instances  to  inves- 
tigate the  facts  and  then  report  to  public  opinion, 
and  then  in  spite  of  that,  the  proper  authority, 
and  public  opinion  as  well,  were  flouted  by  either 
one  or  the  other  of  the  parties,  that  there  would  be 
some  perfection  of  the  machinery  whereby  such  a 
thing  could  be  avoided  in  the  future.  At  all  events, 
Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  such  are  a  few  of  the 
thoughts  that  occurred  to  me  in  regard  to  the  paper 
that  has  been  read. 

I  feel  that  very  great  good  has  been  done  by 
bringing  expert  minds  to  deal  with  these  problems  in 
meetings  of  this  character.  I  feel  that  very  great 
good  is  being  done  in  bringing  together  men  of  all 
classes  and  all  sections  in  this  community,  either  on 
this  side  or  the  other  side  of  the  water,  to  come  to- 
gether and  discuss  these  questions,  not  in  the  light 
of  any  set  hard  and  fast  economic  doctrines,  not  in 
the  light  of  any  hard  and  fast  rule  in  regard  to  the 
interests  of  a  class  or  a  section  of  the  country,  but  to 
bring  people  together  to  discuss  these  questions  on 
the  broad  basis  of  humanity,  and  in  proportion  as 
that  is  done  by  this  Civic  Federation  or  any  similar 


92  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

body,  either  on  our  side  or  the  other  side,  I  believe 
that  just  in  that  proportion  are  you  doing  well  for 
your  day  and  generation  and  doing  good  not  only 
to  your  own  community  here,  but  to  the  industrial 
community  everywhere,  the  wide  world  over.  (Ap- 
plause.) 

ADJOURNED. 


The  first  session  of  the  second  day  was  called  to 
order  at  10:50  A.  M.  by  CHAIRMAN  HANNA. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Committee  will  be  in  order. 
The  discussion  this  morning  will  be  opened  by  Mr. 
John  R.  Commons,  who  has  charge  of  the  investiga- 
tion in  this  country  and  Europe  of  the  subject  of  the 
restriction  of  production.  Mr.  Commons  is  associated 
with  the  United  States  Department  of  Labor  and  has 
made  this  question  a  study  as  well  as  one  of  inves- 
tigation. 

MR.  JOHN  R.  COMMONS:  Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentle- 
men— In  talking  with  various  parties  and  reading 
newspapers  on  the  subject  of  restriction  of  output, 
it  has  appeared  to  me  that  a  good  deal  of  confusion 
exists  in  mixing  up  this  question  with  other  questions 
regarding  labor  unions,  and  the  paper  that  I  have 
prepared  attempts  to  make  distinctions  between  the 
question  of  restriction  of  output  and  the  other  re- 
strictions imposed  by  labor  organizations.  This  sub- 
ject involves  the  entire  problem  of  labor  unions. 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  93 

Technically  speaking,  and  in  the  broadest  sense  of  the 
word,  every  union  that  attempts  to  be  more  than  a 
mutual  benevolent  society  endeavors  to  restrict  the 
employer  at  some  point.  It  tries  to  restrict  either  the 
hours  of  work  or  the  number  of  apprentices,  or  the 
employment  of  non-unionists,  or  the  method  and 
medium  of  payment,  or  the  use  of  machinery,  or  the 
division  of  labor,  or  the  speed  of  machinery  and  the 
speed  of  work.  Even  the  demand  for  higher  wages 
is  a  restriction  on  the  freedom  of  the  employer  to  pay 
as  low  wages  as  individuals  would  accept.  In  fact, 
the  very  reason  for  the  existence  of  a  union  is  an 
effort  to  interfere  at  one  or  more  points  with  the 
liberty  of  the  employer  in  managing  his  business.  If 
all  restrictions  and  interferences  with  employers 
should  be  condemned,  does  it  not  follow  that  all  labor 
unions  should  be  condemned? 

But  for  some  reason  the  condemnation  of  labor 
unions  has  not  prevailed,  and  they  have  sprung  up 
and  have  compelled  formal  or  actual  recognition. 
This  means  that  they  have  compelled  employers  to 
submit  to  what,  in  a  wide  use  of  the  word,  may  be 
called  restrictions.  I  assume  that  if  conditions  re- 
main as  they  have  been,  that  is,  if  employers  deal 
with  labor  in  the  future  as  they  have  dealt  in  the 
past,  unions  will  continue  to  grow,  and  increasing 
numbers  of  employers  and  industries  will  be  brought 
to  face  union  restrictions. 

If  labor  unions  are,  in  the  wide  sense  of  the  word, 
restrictive,  the  question  arises,  Are  all  restrictions 
alike?  Are  some  of  these  restrictions  necessary  and 
justifiable  and  others  superfluous  and  wrong?  Do  all 


94 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


labor  restrictions  limit  production?  Or,  are  there 
some  which  limit  production  and  others  which  do  not  ? 
And  of  those  which  limit  production,  are  there  some 
where  the  limitation  is  justifiable,  because  of  com- 
pensations in  other  directions  ?  And  are  there  others 
where  the  restriction  brings  no  compensation  or  in- 
adequate compensation? 

Take  first  the  question  of  shorter  hours.  Is  the 
shorter  work-day  a  restriction  on  output?  A  shorter 
work- day  is  simply  one  form  of  the  demand  for  higher 
wages.  It  means  higher  wages  for  the  time  at  work. 
The  same  question  may,  therefore,  be  asked  of  wages. 
Does  increase  in  wages  restrict  output  ?  Now,  wages 
and  hours  of  labor  are  questions  exactly  the  opposite 
from  those  of  output  or  restriction  on  output.  By 
wages  and  hours  of  labor  we  mean  simply  the  rate 
of  pay  per  hour  received  by  the  workman.  By  out- 
put we  mean  the  amount  of  product  per  hour  which 
the  workman  gives  in  return.  Higher  wages  and 
shorter  hours  may  increase  the  cost  of  output,  but 
this  is  a  question  entirely  different  from  the  quantity 
of  output.  Wages  and  output  together  determine 
cost,  and  if  the  shorter  day  or  higher  wages  bring 
greater  output  per  hour,  then  they  are  exactly  the 
opposite  from  a  restriction  on  output.  This  is,  in- 
deed, one  of  the  reasons  often  advanced  for  shorter 
hours,  namely  that  the  longer  period  for  recuperation 
furnishes  strength  for  increasing  the  speed  while  at 
work.  Closely  connected  with  this  is  the  contention 
that  higher  wages  and  shorter  hours  stimulate  labor- 
saving  devices  in  the  shape  of  inventions  and  im- 
proved business  administration,  and  that  the  coun- 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


95 


tries  of  low  wages  and  long  hours  are  countries  of 
small  output,  poor  machinery  and  slow  business 
methods.  I  do  not  ask  what  are  the  limits  of  truth 
in  these  contentions.  I  only  ask,  Is  it  not  a  source 
of  confusion  and  even  misrepresentation  to  identify 
the  demand  for  shorter  hours  with  the  policy  of  re- 
striction of  output?  Will  not  these  questions  be 
more  candidly  considered  when  it  is  recognized 
that  in  the  labor  contract  there  are  two  bargainers, 
each  of  which  strives  to  get  as  much  as  possible  for 
what  he  gives?  What  the  workman  gives  is  out- 
put. He  wants  high  wages  and  short  hours. 
The  employer  wants  large  output.  The  two  demands 
are  a  matter  of  business  agreement  which  depends  on 
mutual  confidence.  Will  not  the  negotiations  be 
more  successful  when  it  is  recognized  that  both  de- 
mands are  fair  and  honest,  and  that  in  making  its 
demands  each  side  is  working  not  only  for  its  own 
interests,  but  also  for  the  good  of  the  nation  as  a 
whole?  Are  not  high  wages  and  short  hours,  on  the 
one  hand,  and  large  output  on  the  other  hand,  the 
two  grand  objects  of  industrial  progress?  And  where 
employer  and  employee,  by  reasonable  concessions  on 
each  side,  are  able  to  strike  a  fair  balance  between  the 
two,  are  they  not  thereby  through  self-interest  work- 
ing out  the  highest  interest  of  all  the  people? 

Take  next  the  question  of  apprentices.  The  union 
apparently  has  two  objects  in  view:  To  limit  num- 
bers and  to  give  each  journeyman  an  all-around  edu- 
cation in  the  trade.  Both  of  these  objects  tend, 
apparently,  to  restrict  output.  With  the  modern  in- 
creasing specialization  the  employer  does  not  need 


96  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

all-around  men  and  cannot  afford  to  spare  the  time 
of  his  foremen  and  workmen  to  teach  the  apprentice 
for  three  or  more  years  the  several  branches  of  the 
trade.  Where  the  boy  might  become  expert  and 
speedy  in  one  operation  in  six  months,  the  union  does 
not  allow  him  to  specialize  until  he  has  passed  his 
apprenticeship.  I  do  not  know  whether  or  not,  in  the 
long  run  and  in  all  trades,  this  is  a  restriction  on 
output.  Apart  from  the  question  of  wages,  does  the 
workman  who  spends  three  years  in  learning  a  trade 
and  is  then  assigned  permanently  to  an  operation 
which  he  might  have  mastered  with  great  speed  in 
six  months,  does  such  a  workman  turn  out  more  pro- 
duction than  he  would  if  he  had  specialized  from  the 
first?  If  so,  does  his  greater  versatility  and  superior 
quality  of  work  as  an  all-around  man  compensate 
the  employer  for  the  time  and  expense  of  teaching 
him  the  entire  trade?  The  individual  employer  prob- 
ably says  no,  if  we  may  judge  from  the  large  propor- 
tion of  workmen  who  learn  their  trades  in  country 
towns,  where  competition  is  less  strenuous,  and  then 
seek  the  cities  for  journeymen's  wages. 

Apprentices  might  learn  their  trades  in  trade 
schools,  but  this  would  take  off  the  limitation  on 
numbers  which  the  union  requires  in  order  to  main- 
tain union  wages.  The  uppermost  questions  in  this 
matter,  therefore,  are  these:  Are  high  wages  desir- 
able, and  if  desirable,  can  they  be  maintained  if  the 
limits  on  apprentices  are  removed?  Also,  is  an  all- 
around  education  in  the  trade  an  advantage  to  the 
modern  form  of  specialized  industry,  and  if  so,  can 
this  be  secured  by  other  means  than  apprenticeship? 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  97 

The  question  of  restriction  on  machinery  is  con- 
nected with  that  of  high  wages  and  apprenticeship. 
Is  it  a  restriction  on  output  when  the  union  requires 
a  three-dollar  man  to  operate  a  machine  that  could 
be  just  as  well  run  by  a  dollar-and-a-half  man? 
When  a  machine,  like  the  type-setting  machine  or 
the  cigar-making  machine,  is  introduced,  the  skilled 
workman  may  either  continue  to  work  at  the  machine 
at  his  former  rate  of  wages,  or  he  may  give  way  to 
girls  and  unskilled  men  at  lower  wages.  If  the  union 
is  strong  and  wise,  the  former  method  will  be  adopted. 
If  the  union  is  weak  and  short-sighted,  the  latter  will 
be  permitted.  But  the  question  of  restrictions  on 
machinery  is  entirely  different  from  the  question  of 
high  wages  for  operating  machines.  One  union  may 
require  three  skilled  men  to  a  machine,  where  one 
skilled  and  two  unskilled  could  do  the  work.  This 
would  not  be  a  restriction  on  output,  as  it  would  be 
if  the  union  required  four  men  to  operatewhere  three 
would  suffice.  In  the  first  case  the  union  simply  de- 
mands high  wages ,  in  the  second  it  tries  to '  'make  work. ' ' 
I  submit  that  the  question  of  restriction  of  output 
cannot  be  discussed  until  it  is  clearly  distinguished 
from  the  question  of  high  wages  and  the  means,  such 
as  apprenticeship  or  membership  in  a  union,  by  which 
high  wages  are  secured.  A  union  may  demand  that 
only  skilled  men  shall  be  employed  on  a  machine. 
This  is  not  restriction  of  output,  though  it  may  be 
discrimination  against  the  unskilled  man  who  might 
have  scoured  an  advance  from  common  labor  to 
machine  labor.  But  is  not  the  question  whether 
organized  labor  discriminates  against  unorganized 


98  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

labor  entirely  different  from  the  question  whether 
organized  labor  restricts  speed  and  reduces  output? 
As  long  as  the  two  questions  are  confused,  will  it 
ever  be  possible  to  settle  either  of  them  reasonably? 
Take  next  the  question  of  a  minimum  wage. 
Here  is  a  question  of  fact  as  well  as  a  question  of 
theory.  The  question  of  fact  is  this:  Is  it  a  mini- 
mum wage  or  a  uniform  wage  that  unions  demand? 
And,  if  a  minimum  wage,  is  it  so  enforced  as  to 
amount  to  substantially  a  uniform  or  maximum 
wage?  Do  unions  prohibit  employers  from  paying  a 
man  according  to  his  ability,  or  do  they  only  pro- 
hibit him  from  paying  less  than  the  minimum  and 
permit  him  to  pay  as  high  a  maximum  as  he  may 
wish?  Here  are  two  entirely  different  questions,  and 
it  is  useless  to  discuss  either  until  they  have  been 
clearly  separated.  The  facts  must  be  agreed  upon 
first,  and  then  the  discussion  must  be  held  to  the 
facts,  or  else  nothing  but  misunderstanding  and  hos- 
tility will  result.  It  is  preposterous  to  denounce  all 
unions  for  insisting  on  a  uniform  wage.  The  Typo- 
graphical Union  permits  employers  to  pay  more  than 
the  minimum.  With  $27  as  the  minimum  in  New 
York,  there  are  newspapers  that  pay  no  compositor 
less  than  $30.  The  Bricklayers'  Union,  on  the  other 
hand,  prohibits  the  employer  from  paying  more  than 
the  minimum.  But  here  is  a  question  of  the  evil  to 
be  met.  If  the  Bricklayers'  Union  prohibits  a  con- 
tractor from  giving  a  swift  man  extra  pay  to  set  the 
pace  for  the  others,  can  the  contractor  come  into 
court  with  clean  hands  ?  Is  this  a  case  of  higher  pay 
for  more  efficient  labor  or,  rather,  a  case  of  forcing 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  99 

inferior  workmen  to  do  as  much  as  superior  ones  at 
less  pay? 

There  are  also  local  unions  like  the  tile-layers, 
plumbers  and  plasterers,  which  sometimes  place  an 
absolute  limit  on  the  amount  of  work  their  members 
shall  be  permitted  to  do,  and  these  limits  are  en- 
forced by  fines  and  penalties.  Before  these  restric- 
tions can  be  remedied,  we  must  know  the  reasons 
that  have  led  the  unions  to  adopt  them. 

These  reasons  may  be  discovered  if  we  proceed  to 
the  live  questions  of  piece  and  premium  methods  of 
payment.  The  ordinary  man  will  turn  out  more 
work  if  paid  by  the  piece  than  he  will  if  paid  by  the 
time.  In  bicycle  races  there  are  paced  races  and 
unpaced  races.  An  automobile  or  tandem  keeps  just 
ahead  of  the  bicycle  rider  to  set  the  pace.  Conse- 
quently the  records  in  paced  races  are  20  per  cent, 
to  60  per  cent,  faster  than  the  unpaced  records,  and 
the  greatest  differences  are  in  the  longest  runs.  The 
man  with  an  incentive  just  ahead  of  him  at  every 
move  he  makes  will  throw  more  energy  into  each 
move,  and  there  will  be  no  alternations  of  letting  up 
and  then  recovering.  He  will  keep  up  the  pace  to 
the  end  without  relaxation.  If  paced  races  are  pro- 
hibited, only  the  slower  records  will  be  made.  Just 
so,  if  a  union  prohibits  piece  and  premium  systems, 
it  restricts  output.  It  may  advance  different  reasons 
for  doing  so.  It  may  claim  that  speeding  up  reduces 
quality.  But  it  is  a  proper  question  whether  the 
quality  of  the  work  belongs  to  employees  to  deter- 
mine. Is  this  not  the  employer's  business?  The 
employer  is  the  one  who  studies  the  markets.  His 


ioo  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

success  depends  on  making  an  article  which  will  sell. 
If  the  public  demands  cheap  goods,  he  must  make 
them.  If  the  public  demands  better  goods,  he  must 
supply  also  that  demand.  Several  machine  tool- 
makers,  finding  that  piece-work  does  not  secure  as 
good  quality  as  they  require,  have  changed  to  the 
day  basis.  Other  manufacturers  who  find  that  piece 
work  furnishes  both  quality  and  price  suitable  to 
their  line  of  business,  have  adopted  piece-work. 
Still  others  wish  to  experiment  in  that  direction  but 
are  deterred  by  the  unions.  Now  the  employer  takes 
the  risk  of  the  business.  He  guarantees  wages  and 
takes  chances  of  profits.  He  is  a  kind  of  buffer  be- 
tween the  wage-earner  and  the  purchaser.  If  unions 
exert  themselves  to  get  higher  wages,  which  the  em- 
ployer must  pay  whether  he  loses  money  or  makes 
money,  does  it  not  follow  that  they  should  leave  the 
employer  free  to  find  the  ways  and  means  by  which 
the  money  is  earned  to  pay  the  wages  ?  If  the  union 
restricts  the  employer  in  the  matter  of  wages  and 
hours,  is  it  not  presumptuous  and  unbusiness-like 
that  it  should  also  restrict  him  in  the  kind  and  quality 
of  goods  which  he  sells  in  order  to  pay  wages  and  re- 
duce hours? 

Again,  the  resistance  to  piece-work  and  the  limita- 
tions on  output  are  sometimes  defended  on  the  ground 
that  increased  output  throws  men  out  of  work.  I 
find  the  following  statement  coming  from  the  head 
of  the  International  Machinists'  Union,  intended  to 
show  the  gains  and  benefits  received  by  members  of 
that  union  during  two  years.  He  says:  "Thirty- 
seven  lodges  reported  having  prevented  the  introduc- 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  101 

tion  of  the  piece-work  system  in  shops  employing 
4,500  men.  This  system,  when  in  practical  opera- 
tion, reduces  the  force  on  a  fair  estimate  one-fourth. 
Thus  the  positions  of  1,125  men  have  been  saved, 
which  amounts  to  $2,475  Per  day,  or  $744>6?5  per 
year."  He  also  says:  "We  prevented  the  introduc- 
tion of  the  two-machine  system  in  137  shops,  em- 
ploying 9,500  men."  It  is  safe  to  say  that  if  this 
system  had  been  introduced,  the  force  of  men  would 
be  reduced  one-eighth;  hence  in  this  we  saved  the 
positions  of  1,188  men,  whose  daily  wages  would 
amount  to  $2,613.60  per  day,  or  $818,056.80  per 
year." 

I  do  not  know  to  what  extent  the  unions  endorse 
this  line  of  argument  and  base  their  policies  upon  it. 
Is  this  the  strongest  argument  or  the  only  argument 
that  they  can  advance  to  sustain  restriction  of  out- 
put? Can  restriction  of  output  be  rationally  ad- 
vocated on  the  ground  that  it  "makes  more  work; " 

There  is  another  argument  often  brought  against 
piece-work,  namely,  that  it  drives  the  workman  to 
over-exertion,  injures  his  health  and  shortens  his 
trade  life.  The  sweating  system  in  the  clothing  trade 
is  essentially  a  piece-work  system.  But  the  question 
comes  up,  Is  it  piece-work  alone  or  is  it  other  condi- 
tions connected  with  piece-work  that  have  an  in- 
jurious effect?  In  the  clothing  trade  we  have  immi- 
gration, over-supply  of  labor,  seasonal  work,  long 
hours,  small  contractors,  cut -throat  competition. 
These  conditions  would  drive  workmen  to  over-exer- 
tion on  a  day-wage  basis,  but  the  piece-work  system 
probably  intensifies  the  effect  of  the  other  conditions. 


102  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE 

To  what  extent  do  these  and  similar  conditions  exist 
in  other  occupations?  If  employers  wish  to  be  free 
to  adopt  the  piece-work  system,  should  they  not 
join  with  the  unions  in  studying  and  endeavoring  to 
remedy  these  other  conditions  that  "  go  to  make 
unions  hostile  to  piece-work?  There  are  unions  and 
workmen  in  many  establishments  who  approve  of 
piece-work  and  encourage  an  increase  of  output. 
What  are  the  collateral  conditions  which  reconcile 
them  to  this  policy?  Is  it  practicable  to  adopt  the 
system  of  piece-work  and  increased  output  in  such 
a  way  as  to  protect  the  health  and  prolong  the  trade 
life  of  the  workmen? 

This  leads  to  the  question  of  responsibility  of  em- 
ployers for  restrictions  imposed  by  unions.  The 
object  of  piece  and  premium  systems  is  to  increase 
output.  The  inducement  offered  is  higher  pay  for 
greater  output.  If  the  workman  increases  his  pro- 
duction fifty  per  cent,  when  put  on  piece-work,  does 
it  prove  that  he  has  been  cheating  his  employer  when 
he  was  paid  by  the  day? 

There  can  be  no  lasting  solution  of  this  problem  as 
long  as  each  side  believes  the  other  is  dishonest.  If 
the  employer  believes  the  workman  has  been  cheating 
him,  he  at  once  proceeds  to  cut  the  price.  He  reduces 
the  piece  rate  so  that,  even  with  the  added  exertion, 
the  earnings  are  reduced  to  the  day-rate  level.  Is  it 
not  true  that  workmen  almost  universally  believe 
that  this  is  what  employers  will  do  if  they  increase 
their  output?  Believing  this,  is  there  any  other 
possible  way  for  them  to  protect  themselves  except 
by  restricting  production?  They  say  that  the  em- 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


103 


plovers  bring  forward  the  earnings  of  the  swiftest 
men  as  the  standard  of  output  for  the  others.  Be- 
lieving this,  what  other  remedy  is  there  than  to  organ- 
ize a  union  and  prohibit  the  swiftest  men  from  earning 
so  much  ?  The  question  appears  to  be  one  of  mutual 
confidence  in  the  honesty  of  the  other  side.  But  it 
is  more  than  honesty.  It  is  also  a  question  of  psy- 
chology. It  is  a  question  of  human  motive.  The 
paced  bicycle  race  is  20  per  cent,  to  60  per  cent, 
faster  than  the  unpaoed  race.  It  is  based  on  a  differ- 
ent psychology  and  on  additional  motives  that  are 
called  into  play.  It  is  not  a  matter  of  honesty;  it 
is  a  matter  of  inducement.  Is  not  the  same  true  of 
piece  and  premium  wages,  compared  with  day  wages? 
Is  it  not  perfectly  honest  and  human  that  men  will 
turn  out  more  work  at  a  piece  rate  than  at  a  day  rate  ? 

But  this  is  not  enough.  It  is  equally  important  to 
know  how  much  more.  Should  a  piece  rate  be  based 
on  earning  10  per  cent,  more  or  on  earning  50  per 
cent,  more  than  the  day  rate?  Should  the  piece  rate 
be  calculated  on  the  earnings  of  the  swiftest  man,  or 
the  slowest  men,  or  the  average  of  all? 

Again,  what  guarantees  will  be  given  for  the  con- 
tinuance of  the  rates  ?  How  will  they  be  revised  when 
new  machinery  is  introduced?  Will  they  be  guar- 
anteed for  one  year  or  for  five  years?  And  at  the 
end  of  the  period,  on  what  basis  will  they  be  revised 
for  another  year  or  another  five  years?  Will  this  re- 
vision be  on  a  10  per  cent,  differential  or  on  a  50 
per  cent,  differential?  Will  it  be  on  the  basis,  say, 
of  the  ten  swiftest  men,  or  on  the  basis  of  the  average 
earnings  of  the  shop  ?  All  these  are  questions  which 


io4  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

it  appears  to  me  employers  and  employees  should 
agree  upon  in  advance  and  bind  themselves  to  abide 
by  their  agreement.  Is  it  reasonable  to  expect  that 
with  such  an  understanding  and  with  confidence  in 
its  execution  the  strongest  arguments  of  unions  for 
limiting  production  would  be  met  and  overcome? 
And  furthermore,  can  either  side  be  held  to  its  agree- 
ment unless  there  is  strong  organization  on  both 
sides  ? 

I  have  touched  on  only  a  few -of  the  questions  which 
this  subject  presents.  I  wish  to  ask,  Cannot  this 
great  problem  be  met  frankly  and  openly  without 
recrimination?  If  unions  restrict  output,  can  they 
not  frankly  admit  it  and  give  their  reasons?  If  em- 
ployers provoke  restrictions,  can  they  not  frankly  ad- 
mit it  ?  Cannot  the  two  thus  come  together,  eliminate 
the  false  reasons  and  remedy  the  true  ones  ?  Unions 
appear  to  be  increasing  in  numbers  and  power.  If 
they  rely  on  unsound  theories  of  political  economy 
they  ought  to  be  thankful  for  honest  criticism.  If 
employers  provoke  them  to  unsound  practices,  em- 
ployers also  should  welcome  honest  criticism.  The 
outside  public  is  vitally  interested,  but  will  not  con- 
sent that  one  side  shall  use  this  as  an  excuse  to  crush 
the  other.  Yet  the  public  cannot  interfere  in  the  tech- 
nical details.  It  can  only  hope  that  the  parties  immedi- 
ately interested  will  settle  the  matter  fairly  between 
themselves.  Too  long  has  the  problem  been  left  to 
ill-informed  writers  and  speakers.  It  is  an  encourag- 
ing sign  that  through  the  trade  agreement  system 
employers  and  workmen  themselves  are  taking  up  the 
question  in  a  scientific  way.  The  present  conference 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  105 

is  an  outgrowth  of  this  system.  Cannot  this  confer- 
ence raise  the  question  to  a  high  level  of  discussion 
and  lay  down  sound  principles  that  will  lead  to  a 
fair  solution? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Gentlemen,  the  next  paper  will 
be  from  Frederick  A.  Halsey,  associate  editor  of  the 
American  Machinist,  on  the  topic,  "The  Premium 
Plan  of  Paying  for  Labor." 

MR.  HALSEY  spoke  as  follows:  Mr.  Chairman  and 
Gentlemen — The  first  article  of  my  creed  relative  to 
the  treatment  of  the  employee  by  the  employer  is 
that  he  shall  treat  him  like  a  man,  and  one  of  the 
first  conclusions  following  that  line  of  policy  is  that 
he  shall  not  make  presents  to  him.  I  have  very  little 
faith  in  many  things  that  are  being  done  in  the  name 
of  social  betterment,  because  they  savor  so  much  of 
gratuities.  Of  course,  in  so  far  as  these  things  lead  to 
better  living  and  higher  thinking,  they  are  commend- 
able, but  the  systematic  giving  away  of  things  which 
have  a  money  value  is  not,  I  believe,  permissible. 

In  this  world  men  want  pay,  not  gifts.  Raise  a 
man's  wages  and  you  add  to  his  self-respect;  system- 
atically make  presents  to  him  and  you  cultivate  the 
spirit  of  the  waiter,  dependent  on  his  tips. 

I  believe  we  must  base  our  solution  of  the  labor 
problem  on  human  nature.  However  well  or  ill  we 
may  think  of  human  nature,  one  thing  at  least  we 
know — that  of  all  the  things  that  come  within  human 
ken,  this  is  one  of  the  few  that  with  latitude,  longi- 
tude, nationality  or  lapse  of  time  does  not  change, 
and  hence,  whatever  is  based  upon  human  nature  is. 


io6  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

at  least,  founded  upon  a  rock.  Instead,  therefore,  of 
building  upon  the  shifting  sands  of  altruism  or  of 
brotherly  love,  I  believe  we  must  build  upon  the  rock 
of  human  nature.  The  personal  pecuniary  interest 
of  employer  and  employee — these  are  the  warp  and 
the  woof  from  which  the  fabric  must  be  woven,  these 
are  the  needle  and  the  shuttle  with  which  the  seam 
must  be  sewn. 

The  system  of  premium  payment  is  in  a  sense  in- 
tended to  split  the  difference  between  day's  work  and 
the  piece-work  systems.  By  that  I  mean  that  it  is 
at  bottom  a  rate  of  payment  per  day,  just  like  day's 
work,  but  above  that  is  placed  an  additional  payment 
dependent  upon  the  amount  of  output,  the  net  result 
being  that  the  employee's  wages  increase  with  the 
output,  but  not  so  rapidly  as  the  output.  In  that 
respect  it  differs  from  piece-work  alone.  With  piece- 
work and  between  cuts  in  the  piece  prices,  the  pay 
is  in  proportion  to  the  output.  With  the  prem- 
ium method  of  payment  the  pay  increases 
with  the  output,  but  not  so  rapidly.  Since 
an  increase  of  output  is  followed  by  a  less  than 
proportionate  increase  of  wages,  it 'follows  that  an 
increase  of  output  results  in  an  increase  of  wages 
per  day,  but  a  reduction  of  wages  per  piece  of  product, 
and  the  system  is,  therefore,  in  a  sense,  co-operative. 

This  is  an  appropriate  place  to  say  regarding  Mr. 
Mosely's  remarks  of  yesterday  on  piece-work,  that  I 
am  quite  sure  it  does  not  work  as  well  in  this  country 
as  he  seems  to  think.  That  the  American  employer 
does  not  cut  the  piece  rates  as  freely  as  is  done  in 
Europe  is,  I  am  sure,  a  thesis  that  cannot  be  success- 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


107 


fully  defended.  At  the  same  time  Mr.  Mosely's  con- 
clusions may  have  been  the  result  of  a  loose  use  of 
words. 

We  have  in  this  country  a  system  known  as  the 
New  England  Contract  Plan,  which  is  often  confused 
with  piece-work,  and,  in  fact,  often  goes  by  that 
name.  It  undoubtedly  works  more  smoothly  than 
straight  piece-work,  and  because  of  the  confusion  of 
names  piece-work  at  times  receives  credit  which  does 
not  belong  to  it. 

The  result  of  the  division  of  the  gain  due  to  in- 
creased production  between  the  employer  and  the 
employee  is  at  first  sight  paradoxical,  i.  e.,  the  wages 
go  up  and  the  cost  goes  down  at  the  same  time,  and 
the  one  because  of  the  other.  It  may  be  objected 
and  it  has  been  objected  that  this  is  not  equitable  to 
the  workman;  that  it  is  only  proper  and  right  that 
he  should  be  paid  in  proportion  to  his  output,  that 
is,  by  straight  piece-work.  To  explain  in  general 
terms  why  I  do  not  think  this  is  the  case  is  a  long 
story,  but  a  concrete  illustration  will  explain  it  as 
well  as  a  long  dissertation  would  do.  Not  long  ago 
I  was  at  the  works  of  the  Lodge  &  Shipley  Machine 
Tool  Co.,  of  Cincinnati.  Mr.  Lodge  was  showing  me 
about,  and  he  pointed  to  an  old  lathe  that  had  come 
down  to  him  from  the  early  days  of  his  business  life, 
and  remarked  that  that  lathe  had  cost  him  $625,  but 
that  to-day  he  would  be  glad  to  sell  a  lathe,  better 
made  in  every  respect,  containing  much  more  iron 
and  of  a  better  design,  for  $300.  Now,  it  seems  to 
me  as  plain  as  anything  in  the  world  can  be  that 
piece-work  rates,  based  upon  a  price  of  $625,  could 


io8  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

not  possibly  be  maintained  when  the  price  had  fallen 
to  $300.  In  other  words,  as  I  look  upon  it,  cuts  in 
the  piece  rates  are  the  necessity  and  the  result  of 
falling  prices.  If  an  employer  does  not  cut  them 
from  choice,  he  will  eventually  do  it  from  necessity. 
These  cuts  are  inherent  in  the  piece-work  system,  and 
it  is  largely  to  get  over  the  necessity  of  cutting  the 
rates  that  the  premium  plan  was  devised. 

Had  that  lathe  been  made  by  piece-work  when  sold 
at  the  old  price,  cuts  in  the  piece  prices  would  have 
been  inevitable  before  the  present  price  was  reached. 
This  condition  of  falling  prices  when  considerable 
periods  of  time  are  considered,  is  universal,  and  it 
necessitates  repeated  cuts  in  the  piece  prices  paid  to 
the  workman.  In  other  words,  payment  of  wages  in 
proportion  to  the  output — that  is,  by  a  price  per 
piece — is,  when  considerable  periods  of  time  are  con- 
sidered, impossible,  and  it  was  to  remedy  this  con- 
dition that  the  premium  plan  was  devised.  By 
giving  the  workman  a  portion  only  of  the  gain  due 
to  increased  output  and  giving  the  remainder  to  the 
employer,  the  workman  is  rewarded  for  increased 
effort,  while  a  reduction  of  cost  is  provided  to  accom- 
pany future  reduced  prices,  and  the  necessity  for  re- 
peated changes  in  the  rates  under  which  the  em- 
ployee works  is  obviated.  The  premium  plan,  in 
short,  looks  into  the  future,  whereas  the  piece-work 
plan  shuts  its  eyes  to  it. 

The  plan  recognizes  further  the  difference  between 
the  points  of  view  of  the  employer  and  the  employee 
as  regards  wages.  The  employer,  naturally,  meas- 
ures wages  in  units  of  output,  whereas  the  employee 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  109 

as  naturally  measures  them  in  units  of  time.  No 
man  who  earns  his  own  living  has  any  way  of  esti- 
mating the  value  of  his  labor  except  by  the  income 
it  gives  him  per  day,  per  month  or  per  year.  That 
is  true  of  all  grades  of  labor;  from  the  man  who 
carries  a  hod  to  the  President  of  the  United 
States  Steel  Corporation.  It  is  true  of  all  trades, 
professions  and  occupations.  The  ignoring  of  this 
difference  in  the  point  of  view  of  the  employer  and 
the  employee  leads  to  an  apparent  antagonism  be- 
tween them  which  does  not,  in  fact,  exist.  We  say 
that  their  relations  are  essentially  those  of  buyer  and 
seller,  and  just  as  the  interests  of  the  buyer  are  with 
low,  and  those  of  the  seller  with  high  prices,  so,  we 
say,  the  interests  of  the  employers  are  with  low,  and 
of  the  employee  with  high  wages.  That  statement 
of  the  case  is  one  of  those  half-truths  that  is  as  pretty 
nearly  as  good  as  a  whole  falsehood,  and  it  is  a  half 
truth  because  we  ignore  the  difference  between  these 
points  of  view.  Stated  fully,  the  statement  becomes, 
The  interests  of  the  employer  are  with  low  wages  per 
unit  of  product,  while  those  of  the  employee  are  with 
high  wages  per  unit  of  time,  and  when  we  recognize 
the  full  statement  of  the  case  there  is  no  resulting 
antagonism  whatever.  The  premium  plan  brings 
about  just  this  condition  of  high  wages  per  unit  of 
time  with  low  wages  per  unit  of  product,  and  it  would 
seem  that  if  there  is  any  possible  basis  of  united  and 
co-operative  action  it  is  found  in  this  system. 

I  hold  in  my  hand  a  collection  of  letters  from  a 
number  of  employers  who  use  the  premium  plan, 
Of  these  the  first  is  from  Mr.  James  Rowan  of  Glas- 


no  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

gow,  Scotland,  in  which  he  says:  "You  will  see  from 
the  newspapers  that  our  federation  has  come  to  an 
agreement  wth  the  Amalgamated  Society  of  En- 
gineers. This  has  given  a  tremendous  lift  to  the 
premium  system  and  everybody  is  anxious  to  get 
it  into  their  workshops."  This  agreement  between 
the  association  of  machine  shop  proprietors  of  Great 
Britain  and  the  chief  union  with  which  they  have  to 
deal,  is  the  most  important  event  in  the  history  of 
the  premium  plan.  It  shows  what  I  have 
often  remarked,  that  this  system  has  been  taken 
up  a  great  deal  more  intelligently  and  energetically 
in  England  and  Scotland  than  here.  Of  course  here 
I  have  an  excellent  opportunity  to  direct  attention 
to  it  which  I  have  improved.  In  Great  Britain,  while 
Mr.  Rowan  has  been  quite  active,  he  has  had  no  such 
opportunity  as  mine,  and  the  plan  has  grown  in  use 
there  because  of  its  merits  and  because  the  people  are 
alive.  I  am  quite  sure  that  those  of  us  who  imagine 
that  England  has  gone  to  sleep  will  wake  up  some 
day  and  find  that  it  is  we  who  have  been  dreaming. 
In  such  accounts  of  the  workings  of  the  plan  as  I 
have  heretofore  made,  the  aim  has  been  to  em- 
phasize the  employer's  side  of  it,  because,  in  the 
nature  of  things,  it  is  the  employer  who  must  take 
the  initiative.  The  workman's  side  has  not  been 
ignored,  but  at  the  same  time  the  emphasis  has  been 
on  the  employer's  side.  These  letters  have  been 
brought  out  by  correspondence,  in  which  I  asked 
for  the  results  which  have  been  obtained  by  the 
workmen,  by  which  I  mean  the  actual  increase  of 
wages  that  have  resulted  from  the  workings  of  the 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


in 


plan.  It  so  happens,  however,  that  this  informa- 
tion is  not  easy  to  get  from  the  usual  set  of  cost  books. 
Any  respectable  set  of  cost  books  will  enable  one 
to  compare  the  total  premium  earnings  of  a  de- 
partment with  the  total  wages  of  the  department, 
but  as  some  or  many  in  the  department  may  not 
have  premium  work,  such  an  exhibit  may  give  the 
premiums  of  a  few  as  a  percentage  of  the  wages  of 
many.  To  compare  the  premiums  with  the  daily 
wages  of  those  engaged  on  premium  work  is  another 
matter,  and  this,  while  the  comparison  needed,  I  shall 
not  in  all  cases  be  able  to  give.  Under  many  sys- 
tems of  cost  keeping  it  can  only  be  obtained  by 
laboriously  summing  up  the  individual  time  tickets, 
and  no  one  can  be  criticised  for  declining  to  do  this. 
In  these  letters  are  various  expressions  of  opinion 
of  the  employees'  views  of  the  system.  Of  course 
these  views  come  through  the  employers'  spectacles, 
for  which  allowance  must  be  made,  taking  the  state- 
ments for  what  they  are  worth. 

My  first  letter  giving  figures  is  from  a  shop  in 
which  the  system  has  been  in  use  for  ten  or  eleven 
years,  it  having  been  one  of  the  first  to  take  it  up. 
In  this  letter  I  find:  "We  find  our  men  ask  for  prem- 
iums whenever  a  job  is  given  them  where  the  num- 
ber of  pieces  and  the  time  of  operation  is  sufficient 
to  warrant  it.  We  find  that  the  premium  plan  gives 
stimulus  to  many  otherwise  monotonous  repetitive 
jobs,  which  in  our  case,  where  most  of  our  employees 
are  young  men,  is  a  great  factor  in  keeping  them 
with  us."  The  difficulty  of  obtaining  the  average 
results  for  a  period  of  time  to  which  I  have  referred 


112 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


has  caused  this  correspondent  to  send  some  repre- 
sentative jobs  from  different  departments,  which, 
while  not  so  satisfactory  as  a  general  average,  are 
nevertheless  worth  giving.  In  one  department  the 
average  increase  of  wages  in  doing  thirteen  pieces 
of  work  was  twenty-six  per  cent. ;  in  another  depart- 
ment the  average  increase  in  doing  fifteen  pieces  of 
work  was  thirty  per  cent.  All  of  the  earnings  of  one 
man  who  has  been  pretty  steadily  engaged  on  prem- 
ium work  for  an  entire  year  show  an  increase  for 
the  year  of  fifteen  per  cent. 

The  second  letter  reads:  "I  send  herewith  a  list 
showing  the  wages  before  we  started  the  premium 
system  and  afterward."  Then  follows  the  list,  which 
includes  the  eight  operations  of  one  department,  the 
average  increase  in  wages  for  the  whole  department 
being  fourteen  per  cent. 

The  third  letter  is  from  Scotland,  and  you  will  ob- 
serve that  the  results  are  not  affected  by  geography 
nor  nationality.  The  letter  reads:  "We  have  had 
this  system  in  our  works  for  about  four  or  five  years. 
We  are  very  well  pleased  with  the  results,  and  as  far 
as  we  are  able  to  learn  our  men  are  also  well  pleased. 
We  have  selected  at  random  the  following  twelve 
men,  and  we  give  you  their  rate  of  weekly  wages  and 
we  also  give  you  the  money  they  have  earned  per 
week  on  an  average  over  three  months."  The 
figures  show  average  increased  wages  of  eighteen  per 
cent. 

The  fourth  letter  is  signed  by  a  British  name  that 
stands  so  high  upon  the  roll  of  great  and  honorable 
achievement  that  it  is  a  genuine  hardship  not  to  be 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


permitted  to  give  it.  The  premium  earnings  of 
those  earning  premiums  in  a  department  are  com- 
pared with  the  daily  wages  of  all  in  the  department, 
but  as  the  percentage  of  those  earning  premiums  is 
given  allowance  may  be  made  for  this.  The  exhibit 
is  in  tabular  form  thus : 

FITTING  WORK 


Date 

Percentage  of  Employees 
Earning  Premiums 

A  verage  Percentage  of 
Increase  in  Wages  to 
Entire  Department  due 
to  the  Premiums  Earned 

July    9 

5I.I 

10-35 

"      16 

63o 

14.1 

"     23 

68.8 

17.1 

"      30 

63-4 

12.75 

August    6 

80. 

17-73 

"      13 

79-7 

19.29 

ORDINARY  MACHINE  WORK 


February  12 
March  5 
August  13 

20.7 
63.5 
71- 

3-29 
21.3 
19-53 

MILLING  WORK 

August    6 
"      13 

TOO. 
95-6 

36.9 

34- 

The  total  amount  of  work  from  which  this  table  was  made  up  exceeds 
36,000  hours. 

A  western  machine  tool  building  company  reports : 
"We  are  running  our  entire  productive  force  on  it, 
and  the  premium  earnings  average  about  eight  per 
cent,  of  our  pay  roll,  but  increasing  daily.  We  have 


U4  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

heard  of  nothing  but  expressions  of  satisfaction  from 
our  men,  and  venture  the  opinion  that  should  we 
discontinue  using  the  system  the  cream  of  our  em- 
ployees would  hunt  up  a  premium  shop." 

I  have  next  a  table  which  was  published  in  the 
American  Machinist  about  three  years  ago.  It  is 
quite  comprehensive  and  is  free  from  any  possible 
suspicion  of  bias  in  its  compilation,  because  it  in- 
cludes all  the  work  that  had  been  done  in  this  man- 
ner up  to  that  time.  It  includes  20,000  hours  of 
work,  and  shows  an  average  increase  of  wages  of 
twenty-nine  per  cent.  The  next  letter  gives  twenty- 
four  representative  cases,  in  which  the  average  in- 
crease of  wages  was  twenty-eight  per  cent.  A 
second  letter  from  the  same  party  gives  the  average 
increase  for  all  who  worked  on  premium  work  during 
the  then  last  pay  period.  The  total  number  of  hours 
of  work  included  is  15,430,  and  the  average  increase 
was  seventeen  per  cent. 

The  next  letter  is  from  Scotland  and  reads:  "We 
beg  to  say  that  we  have  only  had  the  premium  sys- 
tem in  operation  in  our  works  for  a  few  months  and 
it  is  not  yet  sufficiently  developed  for  us  to  give  you 
any  detailed  information  about  it.  We  can  only  say 
generally  that  we  consider  it  to  have  been  a  great  ad- 
vantage, both  to  ourselves  and  to  the  men  who  have 
worked  under  it.  Roughly  speaking,  we  think  the 
premiums  earned  have  been  about  twenty-five  per 
cent,  over  time  wages." 

The  next  exhibit  is  the  most  comprehensive  of 
all,  as  it  gives  'the  average  gains  for  a  period  of  thir- 
teen months.  During  this  time  the  total  amount 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  115 

paid  out  in  premiums  alone  was  over  $22,000,  while 
during  the  last  six  months  the  amount  thus  paid  out 
was  over  $15,000.  During  the  whole  period  covered 
by  the  table  the  average  increase  in  wages  was 
8.3  cents,  and  during  the  last  six  months  of  the 
period  nine  cents  per  hour. 

The  next  letter  is  from  Scotland  and  reads:  "We 
have  taken  three  sample  fortnightly  pays,  one  each 
in  1900,  1901  and  1902,  and  we  give  you  the  results, 
but  the  figures  for  1901  are  slightly  abnormal,  owing 
to  an  unusual  amount  of  overtime  at  that  date. 
The  effect  of  overtime  is  to  reduce  the  percentage 
of  premium  to  ordinary  wage,  because  the  premium 
rate  is  calculated  only  on  the  normal  wage  rate, 
whereas  the  payment  is  made  with  an  extra  for 
overtime.  This  is  the  reason  for  the  apparent  re- 
duction in  percentage  of  premiums  in  this  case. 

Following  are  the  increases  for  the  three  pay  periods : 

1900 16% 

i901 i3-4% 

1902 17-6% 

Another  letter  from  Scotland  pleads  lack  of  time 
and  includes  no  figures,  but  says:  "Generally,  how- 
ever, we  may  say  the  premium  system  has  been 
with  us  a  great  success.  The  men  like  it  and  we 
like  it,  and  the  men  are  continually  asking  that  jobs 
which  are  at  present  not  made  on  the  premium  sys- 
tem may  be  placed  on  the  system." 

A  manufacturer  of  electrical  machinery  gives  the 
increases  on  general  classes  of  work,  which  run  thus: 


n6        INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

Class  of  work.  Premium  per  hour, 

Cents. 

Lathe 5.7 

Boring  mill 8.7 

Shaper 2.0 

Commutator  building „.  .  .  .  5.5 

Punch  press    7.3 

Armature  winding 6.9 

Still  another  letter  from  Scotland  says:  "In  1899 
the  average  earnings  per  hour  of  all  our  men  at 
machines  were  increased  by  20  per  cent.  In  1900 
they  were  increased  by  23  per  cent.,  and  in  1901 
1901  by  31  per  cent." 

Practically  all  of  the  above  letters  are  from  machine 
shops,  for  which  the  system  was  devised  and  in  which 
it  has  been  most  largely  used.  The  next,  however, 
is  from  a  firm  of  manufacturing  chemists,  who  say: 
"In  talking  the  subject  over  with  the  men  I  find 
them  well  satisfied,  and  in  most  cases  they  have 
averaged  twelve  dollars  a  month  in  premiums." 

A  firm  of  steam  engine  builders  gives  figures  for 
the  average  increase  during  the  first  six  months  of 
the  present  year  (1902)  to  all  who  have  worked 
under  the  system.  These  figures  show  the  increased 
wages  due  to  the  operation  of  the  system  to  have  been 
1 8. 2  per  cent.  The  system  has  been  in  use  in  these 
works  for  about  three  years,  and  the  above  figures 
thus  represent  a  fairly  matured  state  of  the  system's 
operation. 

A  firm  of  brick  and  clay  working  machinery  makers 
say:  "The  average  increase  in  wages  to  our  men 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


when  working  on  premium  work  is  at  least  twenty 
per  cent,  over  the  amount  paid  them  when  working 
day  work." 

Another  exhibit  includes  over  86,000  hours  of 
work,  and  is  especially  interesting  because  the  work 
is  that  of  feeding  automatic  machines,  which  is  done 
by  boys.  In  this  class  of  work  there  is  apparently 
small  opportunity  for  gain,  but,  nevertheless,  the 
boys  increased  their  average  earnings  by  nine  per  cent. 

My  next  and  last  letter  outlines  so  clearly  the 
differences  between  the  workings  of  the  piece-work 
and  the  premium  plans  that,  coming  from  one  who 
has  both  plans  before  him  in  the  same  works,  it 
seems  worthy  of  a  more  extended  extract  than  has 
been  given  from  previous  letters.  The  letter  says: 

'  '  The  first  three  months  under  the  premium  plan 
the  workmen  averaged  6.2  Cents  per  hour  over  their 
day  ratings.  After  it  was  introduced  we  had  no 
trouble  whatever  with  the  system.  The  men  seem 
to  like  it,  and  much  prefer  to  work  under  this  system 
than  by  contract.  We  have  occasionally  had  to 
transfer  a  man  from  this  department  (the  premium 
plan  is  used  in  but  one  department  of  the  works, 
F.  A.  H.)  to  others  a  short  time,  in  which  the  regu- 
lar force  would  have  contract  work.  In  a  short 
time  the  men  thus  transferred,  if  not  returned  to 
their  old  job  or  department,  would  ask  to  go  back, 
or,  failing  in  getting  back,  would  leave  our  employ- 
ment rather  than  work  under  the  contract  system. 

"I  know  other  systems  will  perhaps  reduce  the 
cost  of  the  labor  just  as  effectively  as  the  premium 
system,  but  they  do  it  with  much  more  friction  and 


n8  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

the  management  soon  loses  the  confidence  of  the 
workmen.  The  greatest  evil  of  the  other  systems 
is  the  continuous  slashing  of  the  piece  prices.  We 
have  tried  to  handle  this  with  tact,  but  we  find  a  man 
will  stand  it  until  he  believes  he  cannot  endure  it 
longer  and  then  leave.  His  price  may  have  been 
perfectly  proper,  and  still  the  idea  of  continually 
cutting  him  has  caused  him  to  lose  his  confidence 
in  the  company  and  he  leaves." 

A  GENTLEMAN:  Some  gentleman  here  desires  that 
you  give  a  definition  of  premium  system. 

MR.  HALSEY:  The  premium  system  is  that  system, 
or  any  system,  by  which  the  gains  due  to  increased 
effort  by  workmen  are  divided  between  the  workman 
and  his  employer.  It  is,  in  a  sense,  profit-sharing 
applied  to  the  individual  workman.  Profit-sharing 
makes  a  division  of  profits  from  whatever  source 
they  may  come.  The  premium  plan  divides  the 
gains  made  by  the  individual  workman. 

A  GENTLEMAN:    How  is  the  division  made? 

MR.  HALSEY:  By  making  a  payment  in  money  for 
all  time  saved  in  producing  a  piece  of  work. 

A  GENTLEMAN:    But  how  is  it  divided? 

MR.  HALSEY:  From  one-third  to  one-half  of  the 
whole  gain  is  given  to  the  workmen.  In  the  majority 
of  cases  the  workman  gets  one-half  and  the  employer 
the  other  half  of  the  gain. 

ARCHBISHOP  IRELAND:  I  would  ask,  How  do  the 
labor  unions  generally  look  upon  the  premium  sys- 
tem? 

MR.  HALSEY:  The  union  leaders  are  here  and  can 
speak  for  themselves.  As  I  have  already  stated, 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  119 

the  unions  in  Great  Britain  have  agreed,  through 
their  leaders,  to  give  the  system  a  trial.  In  this 
country,  so  far  as  I  know,  no  union  has  officially 
withdrawn  its  opposition  to  it,  though  many  union 
men  are  working  under  it. 

ARCHBISHOP  IRELAND:  The  system,  if  adopted, 
would  do  entirely  away  with  the  objection  that  the 
man  is  kept  down,  would  it  not?  It  encourages  indi- 
vidual skill. 

MR.  HALSEY:  I  think  the  criticisms  of  British  em- 
ployees relate  to  initiative  as  regards  suggestions, 
rather  than  initiative  in  increasing  the  output.  Ac- 
cording to  my  observations,  the  chief  opposition 
among  the  unions,  at  least  a  large  element  of  the 
opposition,  is  due  to  the  fact  that  they  confound  the 
system  with  piece-work.  Their  opposition  to  piece- 
work has  my  entire  approval — not,  of  course,  that  I 
approve  of  all  their  reasons  for  this  opposition,  but 
some  of  these  reasons  cannot  be  gainsaid  and  are 
sufficient.  In  so  far  as  they  think  this  is  the  same 
thing  in  disguise,  I  cannot  criticise  them  very  strongly 
for  waiting  a  while.  At  the  same  time,  I  do  not  know 
of  any  case  in  which  the  plan  has  been  used  for  any 
considerable  period  in  which  the  opposition  has  not 
disappeared.  The  object  of  the  system  is  to  en- 
courage individual  skill  by  paying  increased  wages 
for  increased  product. 

A  GENTLEMAN:   How  does  it  work  in  this  country? 

MR.  HALSEY:  I  have  made  a  list  of  those  users  of 
the  plan  that  have  come  to  me.  It  is  very  incom- 
plete, and  in  fact,  I  found  that  I  was  missing  so  many 
names  that,  six  months  ago,  I  gave  up  trying  to 


"i20  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

extend  it,  especially  as  I  had  accumulated  enough 
names  to  serve  as  references  to  those  who  ask  for 
references.  The  list  includes  from  forty-five  to  fifty 
names,  although  Mr.  Rowan  informed  me  six  months 
ago  that  there  were  that  number  using  it  in  Great 
Britain  alone. 

A  GENTLEMAN:  What  are  the  objections  to  the 
piece  system? 

MR.  HALSEY:  The  perpetual  cuts  in  the  piece  rates. 

MR.  GOMPERS:  Will  you  please  state  again  how 
many  hours  the  calculation  was  based  upon?  I 
understood  you  to  say  86,000  hours. 

MR.  HALSEY:  That  referred  to  a  single  exhibit. 
There  was  one  exhibit  in  which  boys  were  feeding 
automatic  machines.  The  number  of  hours  included 
in  that  statement  is  86,000. 

MR.  GOMPERS:   That  is  in  the  aggregate. 

MR.  HALSEY:  Yes.  Of  course  you  realize  that  in 
feeding  automatic  machines  there  is  not  the  oppor- 
tunity for  gain  there  is  in  other  classes  of  work. 

MR.  GOMPERS  :  Has  any  calculation  been  made  be- 
tween the  earnings  in  the  form  of  wages  and  the 
premium,  as  compared  to  the  wages  earned  in  other 
establishments  in  the  same  industry? 

MR.  HALSEY:  Not  to  my  knowledge.  These  com- 
parisons all  show  the  increase  that  has  been  obtained 
in  the  same  establishment. 

MR.  GOMPERS:  But  it  does  not  show  whether  the 
wages  and  premiums  equal  or  exceed  or  are  lower 
than  the  wages  earned  in  other  establishments  of  the 
same  industry? 

MR.   HALSEY:    No.     It  is  difficult  enough  to  get 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  I2i 

such  comparisons  as  those  given.  Your  question  is 
very  pertinent,  but  I  do  not  think  such  a  comparison 
as  you  name  can  be  had. 

MR.  GOMPERS:   That  is  very  true. 

A  GENTLEMAN:  I  should  like  to  ask  what  happens 
when  improved  methods  are  introduced? 

MR.  HALSEY:  That  depends  upon  the  locality,  and 
to  answer  it  fully  would  involve  going  into  the  matter 
quite  deeply.  Mr.  Rowan,  whose  letter  I  read,  has 
a  modification  which  he  works  in  Scotland  and  which 
he  thinks  is  an  important  improvement  by  which 
no  change  whatever  is  made.  My  own  idea  is 
that  when  improved  machinery  is  brought  in,  then 
the  gains  due  to  that  machine  do  not  by  right  belong 
to  the  men  but  to  the  employer,  and  there  should  be 
a  new  adjustment  of  rates.  I  have  always  insisted 
there  should  be  no  change  of  the  rates  except  in 
cases  of  that  kind.  So  long  as  the  method  of  pro- 
duction is  not  changed  there  should  be  no  change  in 
the  rates. 

A  GENTLEMAN  :  Have  you  any  reason  for  supposing 
that  the  rate  of  wages  paid  in  these  establishments 
of  which  you  have  given  us  reports  is  less  than  the 
rate  of  union  wages? 

MR.  HALSEY:  I  am  quite  sure  it  is  not  so  far.  I 
understand  your  idea  to  be  the  guarding  of  the  work- 
men against  reductions,  regarding  which  there  are 
many  points  of  view.  There  is  the  large  view  that 
efficient  labor  is  worth  more  than  inefficient  labor, 
and  I  hold  that  it  is  impossible  to  get  the  premium 
output  without  the  premium  wage,  just  as  impossible 
as  for  the  manufacturer  to  get  an  efficient  workman 


122  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

for  an  inefficient  workman's  pay.  Again,  a  union 
gets  an  increase  of  wages  by  a  strike.  The  men  have 
no  guarantee  that  the  increase  will  be  maintained, 
but  they  do  not  refuse  to  take  it  on  that  account. 
I  maintain  that  an  increase  gained  by  the  premium 
plan  is  more  secure  than  by  any  other,  because  for  the 
increase  the  men  give  an  equivalent.  The  workman  is 
still  further  safeguarded  by  the  fact  that  the  acceptance 
or  refusal  of  the  terms  offered  always  lies  with  him.  The 
system  is  not  compulsory  and  cannot  be  made  so. 
The  employer  offers  a  certain  amount  (premium)  for 
each  hour  saved,  and  this  the  workman  may  accept 
or  reject,  as  he  sees  fit.  In  this  the  plan  is,  I  believe, 
unique,  and  this  feature  alone  is,  I  believe,  enough  to 
safeguard  the  workman  against  cuts  in  the  rates. 
At  bottom,  this  system  simply  systematizes  the 
recognition  of  merit.  Instead  of,  as  usual,  leaving 
that  recognition  to  general  observation,  with  possi- 
bilities of  favoritism  on  the  part  of  foremen,  it  sys- 
tematizes the  matter  and  pays  each  one  in  accordance 
with  his  merits.  It  is  a  commonplace  of  the  system 
that  it  discovers  the  good  men.  I  have  been  repeat- 
edly surprised  at  the  broad  views  held  by  many  em- 
ployers regarding  this  question  of  wages.  I  have 
been  told  repeatedly:  "Wages  are  secondary. 
What  we  want  is  output." 

MR.  MOSELY:  I  understood  you  to  say  the  unions 
as  a  whole  object  to  the  premium  system  because  it 
leads  to  the  cutting  of  price.  Is  that  your  experi- 
ence? 

MR.  HALSEY  :  That  objection  is  legitimate  as  against 
piece-work,  but  not  as  against  the  premium  system, 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  I2S 

which  was  devised  expressly  to  avoid  such  cutting. 
Piece-work  is,  on  its  face,  a  system  of  rewards,  but 
in  point  of  fact  it  is  a  system  of  punishments,  and 
worse  still,  a  system  of  punishments  for  doing  well. 
A  workman  under  piece-work  does  the  best  he  can, 
and  when  he  gets  his  wages  beyond  a  certain  limit 
his  piece  rates  are  cut.  He  is  then  compelled  to  work 
harder  than  before  for  the  old  income,  and  this  is  the 
direct  result  of  his  efforts  to  do  well. 

.THE  CHAIRMAN  :  Along  the  same  line  the  next 
speaker  will  be  Mr.  James  O'Connell,  president  of  the 
International  Association  of  Machinists. 

JAMES  O'CONNELL:  Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen 
—You  have  listened  to  the  reading  of  two  papers 
this  morning,  one  by  Mr.  Commons  on  the  limitation 
of  output,  incidentally  touching  upon  the  proposition 
of  piece-work;  and  the  other  by  Mr.  Halsey,  on  the 
premium  plan. 

I  trust,  therefore,  you  will  bear  with  me  for  a  few 
moments,  for  as  a  practical  man — having  spent 
twenty  years  in  the  machine  shop — and  knowing 
something  of  the  practical  side  of  these  questions,  I 
feel  that  I  can  speak  from  the  standpoint  of  one  who 
has  experienced  the  bad  effects  of  piece-work,  and 
representing  as  I  do  an  international  organization 
which  has  had  much  to  do  with  questions  of  piece- 
work, premium  plans  and  so-called  restrictions  of 
output. 

I  have  had  not  only  an  opportunity  of  investigating 
these  questions  in  the  United  States,  but  I  have  also 
visited  England,  Ireland  and  Scotland,  and  while 


124 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


there  made  some  investigation  as  to  the  conditions 
prevailing  in  those  countries. 

We  have  among  us  those  who  espouse  certain  ideas 
as  panaceas  for  the  cure  of  all  diseases  and  ills  to 
which  the  human  family  is  liable.  In  our  political  life 
we  have  various  forms  of  political  parties,  each  be- 
lieving it  is  right.  The  prohibitionists  believe 
that  if  the  liquor  traffic  was  abolished  all  would  be 
plain  sailing;  the  populist  believes  that  we  should 
walk  in  the  middle  of  the  road ;  the  socialist  has  his 
own  theory,  and  the  anarchist  still  another,  but  an 
practical  e very-day  life  we  must  have  facts,  and  the 
best  evidence  of  our  success  in  the  future  must  be 
to  a  large  degree  governed  by  the  history  of  the  past. 

This  morning  we  have  listened  to  two  gentlemen 
whose  ideas  very  largely  differ  as  to  the  practical 
method  of  operating  the  workshops  of  this  country. 
One  cites  a  limitation  of  the  output  in  the  machine 
shop  and  believes  that  restrictions  exist,  and  that  the 
piece-work  system  might  successfully  be  put  in  opera- 
tion. The  other  believes  that  the  piece-work  system 
would  not  bring  about  the  desired  result,  but  recom- 
mends a  premium  plan  or  profit-sharing.  Both  believe 
they  are  right,  but  in  my  opinion,  both  are  wrong. 

The  piece-work  question  when  presented  to  the 
American  workman  is  like  waving  a  red  flag  before  a 
mad  bull.  History  shows  that  piece-work  means  to 
the  workman  increased  output,  coupled  with  a  re- 
duction in  wages,  unfavorable  conditions  of  employ- 
ment, unsanitary  conditions,  cultivation  of  man's 
selfishness,  loss  of  desire  to  co-operate  with  his  fellow 
shopmates — in  a  word,  the  whole  history  of  the  piece- 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  135 

work  proposition  in  this  country  has  been  unfavorable, 
because  of  the  enforced  hardships  under  which  the 
men  worked  and  the  inevitable  reduction  in  their 
wages. 

We  are  told  that  the  employers  want  to  be  fair  in 
this  matter,  and  I  desire  to  say  here  that  we  have 
many  fair  employers — in  fact,  thousands  of  them — 
but  I  have  yet  to  find  an  employer  of  labor  who  has 
introduced  the  system  of  piece-work,  profit-sharing, 
gang  system,  or  any  other  means  whereby  the  men 
worked  by  the  piece,  who  has  not  at  some  time  during 
the  life  of  such  a  system  reduced  the  rate  of  wages, 
and  who  has  not  sought  to  pit  the  swiftest,  strongest 
and  ablest  man  against  the  poorest  and  weakest  one. 
The  man  who  is  beginning  to  grow  old  is,  naturally, 
a  little  slower,  sight  beginning  to  fail,  finds  himself 
in  the  position  of  having  his  living  dictated  by  the 
more  speedy  and  younger  man;  his  rate  constantly 
decreasing  because  of  the  speed-maker  or  pace-maker 
against  whom  he  is  pitted. 

To  illustrate:  In  the  city  in  which  we  are  now 
holding  this  meeting  a  very  large  manufacturing  es- 
tablishment ,  employing  thousands  of  workmen ,  has 
had  a  profit-sharing  system  in  vogue  for  a  number 
of  years.  The  system  provided  that  if  it  took  ten 
days  for  ten  men  to  build  a  certain  machine  and  these 
ten  men  built  a  machine  in  nine  days,  they  were  given 
one  day's  profit.  If  the  next  machine  they  built 
took  eleven  days,  one  day  was  charged  against  them 
on  the  books  and  the  next  time  they  gained  another 
day  the  books  were  balanced.  The  result  of  this 
method  of  paying  the  men  was,  that,  although  they 


126  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

had  never  belonged  to  an  organization  of  labor  and 
had  no  use  for  one  (as  it  is  true  where  you  find  piece- 
work you  find  very  little  organization),  the  men 
struck  for  the  abolition  of  the  system  after  having 
worked  under  it  for  several  years,  and  no  labor  leaders 
had  anything  to  do  with  their  trouble.  They  sent 
for  Mr.  Gompers  and  myself  to  come  to  New  York 
and  try  and  straighten  the  matter  out  for  them.  We 
did  so,  and  succeeded.  We  found  upon  investigation 
that  the  men  in  that  factory  had  not  taken  out  of 
the  company's  coffers  one  cent  in  premium  or  profit 
for  several  years,  but  the  books  of  the  company 
showed  that  the  men  were  indebted  to  the  firm 
$47,000,  and  therefore  no  premium  on  work  per- 
formed by  the  men  could  be  secured  until  the  in- 
debtedness had  been  paid  and  the  books  balanced. 

Do  you  expect  men  to  accept  a  system  of  that  kind 
freely  and  without  question? 

Another  firm  in  the  State  of  New  York  adopted 
what  Mr.  Halsey  is  pleased  to  call  the  "premium 
plan."  They  say  to  a  man,  if  it  takes  you  ten  hours 
to  do  ten  pieces  of  work  and  you  will  do  these  ten 
pieces  in  nine  hours,  then  we  will  allow  you  one 
hour's  premium,  to  be  divided  between  you  and  us. 
It  worked  out  as  follows:  If  a  man  was  averaging 
25  cents  an  hour  and  he  secured  one  hour's  premium 
the  firm  would  allow  him  12^  cents  extra  for  his 
hour  and  keep  12%  for  itself.  What  right,  I  ask,  has 
any  firm  to  take  1 2\  cents  from  my  hour's  labor  that 
I  have  honestly  earned?  What  right  have  they  to 
fine  me  12^  cents  for  my  increased  production? 
What  right  has  Mr.  Halsey  to  say  to  me,  because  I 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  I2; 

am  a  young,  active,  energetic  machinist,  if  I  increase 
my  output  10  per  cent,  that  I  am  to  be  fined  50 
per  cent,  of  the  output  for  my  efforts?  The  firm  is 
at  no  loss  because  of  the  increased  output;  its  fixed 
charges  are  no  greater,  while  on  the  contrary  a  very 
great  saving  must  come  to  the  company  in  fixed 
costs.  It  is  absurd  that  because  of  special  energy 
and  increased  effort  on  my  part  I  should  be  fined 
50  per  cent,  of  my  earnings  for  the  ambition  I  had 
shown  in  increasing  the  output.  But  when  we  com- 
plain to  the  firm  they  say  to  us,  Have  you  not  been 
robbing  us  in  the  past  ?  You  have  been  loafing;  you 
have  not  produced  as  you  should;  when  my  back 
was  turned  you  idled  the  time  away.  I  desire  to 
say  without  fear  of  contradiction  that  this  is  abso- 
lutely untrue.  The  employer  who  makes  these  state- 
ments acknowledges  the  weakness  of  his-  position  and 
asserts  that  the  superintendency  of  his  business  has 
been  of  the  very  worst  character.  In  my  opinion, 
the  entire  fault  with  the  whole  question  of  so-called 
limitation  of  production  or  output  is  in  the  superin- 
tendency of  the  plants.  Not  the  fault  of  the  men  nor 
the  employer.  In  our  growing  institutions  of  to-day, 
the  owners  know  but  little  of  the  real  workings  of 
their  business  inside  the  factory  or  workshop.  They 
are  the  financiers,  but  the  practical  side  of  their  work- 
shop is  unknown  to  them;  they  are  unacquainted 
with  their  workmen;  seldom  visit  inside  their  fac- 
tories or  workshops,  but  are  constantly  engaged  in 
financiering  their  business. 

A  large  pump  manufacturing  company,  now  a  part 
of  the  American  Pump  Company,  introduced  a  plan 


I28  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

similar  to  Mr.  Halsey's  premium  plan,  and  said  to  the 
men,  commencing  on  a  certain  date  every  workman 
who  produced  one-tenth  more  than  formerly  will  be 
given  fifty  per  cent,  in  excess  of  his  former  rate. 
The  men  did  not  quite  understand  the  proposition, 
but  went  on  in  their  usual  way,  put  forth  an  increased 
effort  to  enlarge  the  output  for  a  given  time.  At 
the  end  of  a  week  an  increase  was  shown,  but  the 
workmen  received  for  it  only  fifty  per  cent,  of  the 
increased  output,  the  firm  taking  fifty  per  cent,  to 
itself,  thus  practically  imposing  a  fine  upon  the  men 
for  increasing  the  production  of  the  plant.  There 
had  been  no  additional  costs  to  the  company  in 
operating  its  plant  nor  for  the  superintendency 
thereof.  As  a  result  of  all  this,  the  men  refused  to 
work  longer  under  the  system  and  a  strike  was  in- 
evitable, but  *  the  company  avoided  this  by  agreeing 
to  return  to  the  day  system. 

Piece-work,  premium  plan,  gang-profit-sharing, 
etc.,  when  boiled  down  all  mean  the  same  thing;  in- 
creased production,  decreased  wages.  We  go  to  the 
employer  and  say,  "We  don't  wane  to  accept  the  piece- 
work system;  we  are  willing  to  do  a  fair  day's  work 
for  a  fair  day's  pay,  and  we  are  perfectly  willing  that 
you  should  speed  your  machine  to  suit  yourself.  We 
further  agree  that  you  should  furnish  such  tools  as 
you  believe  will  best  operate  your  plant  and  we  will 
agree  to  operate  such  machinery,  but  we  are  not 
willing  to  work  under  a  system  which  we  know  will 
tend  towards  reducing  our  wages."  The  employer  re- 
plies, "We  don't  want  to  reduce  your  wages ;  we  are 
trying  to  increase  your  wages."  That  is  given  to  us 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


129 


on  every  hand,  "we  want  to  increase  your  wages.'* 
Then  why  not  increase  our  wages  on  the  day  basis 
and  stimulate  us  in  this  way  ?  Why  not  stimulate  us 
by  saying,  "We  will  increase  your  wages  ten  per  cent, 
and  allow  you  to  continue  working  on  the  day  basis, 
with  the  hope  that  increased  wages  and  better  con- 
ditions will  stimulate  you  to  greater  things."  We 
believe  that  with  this  incentive  and  proper  superin- 
tendency  of  the  works  there  would  be  no  necessity 
for  piece-work,  premium  plan,  or  any  other  system 
that  is  obnoxious  to  the  men  in  order  that  we  may 
be  capable  of  competing  for  the  world's  markets. 

More  strikes  have  resulted  in  this  country  against 
vhe  introduction  of  the  piece-work  and  similar  sys- 
tems than,  perhaps,  against  any  other  one  system  in 
the  history  of  our  country.  Mr.  Mosely  said  in  his 
address  yesterday  afternoon  that  he  believed  that  we 
had  to  a  greater  extent  piece-work  in  this  country 
than  existed  in  Great  Britain.  I  desire  to  say  that 
Mr.  Mosely  is  mistaken.  Piece-work,  premium  sys- 
tem and  other  plans  outside  of  the  day  system  do 
not  exist  to  nearly  so  great  an  extent  in  this  country 
as  in  Great  Britain.  In  all  the  great  railroad  systems 
throughout  North  America  there  are  not  over  three 
systems  where  piece-work  is  in  operation,  and  there 
are  but  two  that  I  know  of  where  the  system  has 
been  in  operation  for  a  number  of  years.  The  Bur- 
lington system  in  the  West  and  the  Pennsylvania 
system  in  the  East  are  two  railroad  corporations 
where  piece-work  in  the  mechanical  departments 
is  being  operated.  Just  before  leaving  my  office  in 
Washington  on  Saturday,  I  received  a  telegram  from 


1 30  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

the  men  in  the  West,  who  are  working  under  the 
piece-work  system,  and  who,  by  the  way,  are  unor- 
ganized, requesting  that  assistance  be  sent  at  once 
to  bring  about  the  organization  of  the  road,  in  order 
that  an  effort  might  be  made  to  abolish  the  piece- 
work system.  They  said,  "Send  some  one  to  help 
us;  help  us  to  straighten  this  matter  out;  we  are 
becoming  slaves;  our  conditions  are  becoming  more 
burdensome;  we  are  employed  long  hours;  produce 
excessively  to  make  the  ordinary  wages  that  a  few 
years  ago  we  could  earn  in  a  much  more  reasonable 
time  and  with  much  less  exertion  on  our  part."  These 
men  are  willing  to  go  out  on  .strike  in  midwinter  as  a 
protest  against  the  system  under  which  they  have 
been  employed  for  several  years.  When  men  pro- 
test to  this  extent  who  have  worked  under  a  system 
of  that  kind  for  a  long  time,  and  when  that  protest 
is  made  in  midwinter  and  they  are  willing  to  go  on 
strike  for  the  abolition  of  the  system,  there  is  some- 
thing back  of  it.  There  is  something  else  other  than 
the  fact  that  the  men  may  have  an  opportunity  of 
earning  a  few  dollars  extra  per  year.  It  is  because 
the  system  has  proven  unprofitable  to -them;  it  is 
because  the  system  under  which  they  have  been 
working  has  become  burdensome. 

In  my  own  personal  experience  of  twenty  years  in 
the  machine  shops,  I  have  seen  piece-work,  premium 
plan,  and  other  so-called  methods  of  increasing  the 
output  tried.  I  recall  in  one  instance  in  a  shop  where 
I  was  at  work  the  men  were  asked  to  take  certain 
pieces  of  work  on  the  piece  plan.  They  were  given  a 
guarantee  that  the  prices  would  not  be  cut  for  a 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  I3! 

year.  "  We  will  not  interfere  with  you,"  said  the  firm, 
"for  one  year;  go  ahead;  make  all  you  can;  any  new 
tools  you  desire  to  get  up  let  us  have  your  ideas  and 
we  will  have  them  made  for  you."  The  men,  being 
unfamiliar  with  the  piece-work  and  its  inevitable  re- 
sults, believing  that  it  was  an  opportunity  of  a  life- 
time, accepted  it.  They  pitched  in  and  worked  and 
worked  and  worked.  I  remember  very  well  those 
who  spent  the  noon  hour  chatting  over  their  lunch 
began  to  separate  from  each  other.  There  was  no 
more  shaking  of  hands  and  bidding  each  other  the 
time  of  day.  It  was  now  a  case  of  hustle,  hustle, 
hustle.  In  fact,  the  opportunity  for  attending  to 
nature  was  neglected  during  working  hours.  There 
were  no  more  discussions  as  to  measures  pending  in 
Congress ;  whether  the  President  of  the  United  States 
was  doing  right  or  wrong;  whether  the  Congressman 
representing  the  district  was  the  proper  man  or  not; 
what  the  United  States  Senators  were  doing;  ques- 
tions of  legislation  affecting  the  welfare  of  all  the 
people  had  no  concern  with  the  piece-workers  any 
more  They  were  being  taught  only  to  work  and 
hustle;  you  could  see  them  watching  as  a  cat  would 
a  mouse  the  time  the  engines  would  start,  so  that  the 
machines  would  be  pufc  in  operation.  Men's  avarice 
for  the  almighty  dollar  was  cultivated  to  such  an 
extent  that  in  less  than  three  weeks  the  shop  that 
had  been  a  home-like  place,  relations  pleasant,  men 
working  as  brothers,  all  interested  in  the  advance- 
ment of  each  other,  became  a  hell  on  earth.  A  strike 
resulted;  they  never  had  one  before;  they  have 
never  had  one  since;  piece-work  is  abolished.  Not- 


132  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

withstanding  the  abolition  of  the  system  this  shop 
has  grown  to  be  one  of  the  great  manufacturing  insti- 
tions  of  our  country;  no  piece-work,  premium  plan 
or  its  like  has  entered  its  doors  since  that  time.  And 
so  it  can  be  cited  in  thousands  of  other  cases  where 
the  piece-work,  premium  or  other  plan  has  been  in- 
troduced. They  have  been  driven  out  because  of  the 
unholy  state  of  affairs  under  which  men  were  com- 
pelled to  work,  notwithstanding  the  apparently 
splendid  inducements  held  out  for  them  by  their 
employers. 

Mr.  Halsey  tells  us  that  about  forty-five  firms  in 
the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  are  operating 
their  plants   under  the   premium   plan.     What   per 
cent,  is  this  of  the  total  number  of  manufactories 
in    the    United    States    and    Great    Britain?     Just 
think  of  it!     The   per  cent,   is   so   small  that  it  is 
scarcely  noticeable,   and   yet   Mr.    Halsey  has  been 
working  upon   his   plan,   to   my   knowledge,   several 
years.     How  many  firms  in  the  United  States  are 
operating   their   plants   on   the   piece-work   system? 
The  number  is  so  small  as  compared  with  the  total 
number  to  be  scarcely  recognized.     More  firms  have 
given  up  the  plan  and  gone  back  to  the  day  work 
system  than  are  now  working  under  the  piece  sys- 
tem or  premium  plan.     How  many  firms  are  work- 
ing   the    gang-profit-sharing    system?         You    can 
probably   count   them   on   your   finger   ends.        Mr. 
Barnes    mentioned    yesterday    a    condition    existing 
in  one  of  the  works  that  he  had  visited    which  was 
deplorable.     I  have  not  spoken  to  Mr.  Barnes  since 
he  has  been  in  this  country,  but  I  will  wager  any- 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


133 


thing  that  I  can  name  the  works  he  had  in  mind. 
It  is  the  Baldwin  Locomotive  Works  of  Philadelphia. 
Might  I  ask  him  if  this  is  correct? 

MR.  O'CONNELL:  I  knew  it.  We  can  spot  them 
wherever  they  are  located.  We  know  them.  We 
can  lay  our  fingers  on  the  piece-work  shops  every 
time.  Of  course  there  are  exceptions  to  the  con- 
ditions existing  in  the  piece-work  shops.  Here  and 
there  we  find  an  institution  where  the  tendency  is 
to  treat  the  workmen  fairly.  I  have  in  mind  a  model 
institution — the  president  of  the  company  is  at- 
tending this  meeting — the  system  of  piece-work  is 
in  operation  in  Mr.  Patterson's  factory,  and  I  have 
every  reason  to  believe  that  he  has  always  en- 
deavored to  treat  his  workmen  fairly  because  he  is 
interested  in  the  happiness  of  his  employees;  but 
as  a  general  rule, when  the  employer  comes  to  us  and 
says  he  is  desirous  of  raising  our  wages  and  intends 
to  introduce  some  plan  whereby  the  output  may  be 
increased  we  are  always  skeptical,  for  fear  the  in- 
tention is  to  introduce  the  piece-work  system,  be- 
cause we  have  suffered  much  under  its  baneful  in- 
fluences upon  the  various  trades  and  the  inevitable 
conditions  following  the  introduction  of  this  or 
similar  systems. 

Much  has  been  said  about  the  restriction  of  output. 
It  is  intimated  that  organized  labor  stands  for  re- 
striction, or  in  other  words,  that  we  say  to  our  mem- 
bers you  must  only  do  so  much  work  per  day.  This 
opinion  is  absolutely  without  foundation.  They  say 
we  won't  allow  our  members  to  run  more  than  one 
machine;  that  we  won't  permit  them  to  work  under 


134 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


the  piece-work  system,  hence  we  restrict  the  output. 
Then  again  we  are  charged  with  limiting  or  restrict- 
ing the  number  of  apprentices.  Now  the  fact  is 
that  these  restrictions  are  to  a  great  extent  imagi- 
nary from  the  standpoint  of  the  employer,  and  es- 
pecially do  they  exist  only  in  the  mind  of  the  theorist 
or  the  men  who,  with  a  lead  pencil,  who  have  no 
practical  knowledge,  would  lay  down  a  policy  for  the 
employer  and  the  employee  to  work  under.  These 
professional  theorists  make  a  good  living  by  going 
around  the  country  injecting  their  peculiar  ideas 
and  theories  into  the  minds  of  the  employer,  and  in 
a  large  degree  prejudicing  the  minds  of  the  manu- 
facturers against  their  workmen,  constantly  setting 
forth  that  the  workmen  are  restricting  the  output, 
hence  not  performing  their  proper  duty.  Mr.  Hal- 
sey  says  to  the  manufacturer:  "Introduce  my 
system  into  your  factory  and  you  will  largely  in- 
crease your  output,  reduce  the  cost  of  operating 
your  plant,  and  in  a  small  degree  raise  the  total 
earnings  of  your  employees. ' '  The  piece-work  ad- 
vocate tells  the  employer  that  he  is  being  fleeced; 
that  his  workmen  are  not  producing  as  they  should, 
and  by  the  introduction  of  the  piece-work  system 
the  full  capacity  of  the  plant  could  be  procured. 

Organized  labor  restricts  only  when  it  is  found 
that  the  employer  is  arbitrary  and  will  not  meet  the 
workmen  or  their  representatives  with  a  view  to 
entering  into  a  joint  agreement.  We  believe  if  the 
employer  proposes  to  change  the  day  system  of  em- 
ployment to  some  other  system,  that  the  workman 
has  a  perfect  right  to  say  whether  he  shall  work 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


135 


under  such  a  system  or  not.  We  believe  also  if  the 
employer  introduces  modern  machinery  and  insists 
on  the  workmen  operating  a  large  number  of  ma- 
chines, that  the  employees  have  a  right  to  say  how 
many  machines  they  shall  operate.  We  believe 
also  that  we  have  a  right  to  say  to  the  employer 
that  only  a  reasonable  number  of  apprentices  shall 
be  employed  in  any  factory  as  compared  to  the  total 
number  of  journeymen  employed,  in  order  that  such 
apprentices  may  have  a  fair  and  reasonable  oppor- 
tunity to  learn  the  trade. 

I  have  the  honor  to  represent  a  large  organization 
of  highly  skilled  workmen.  This  organization  says 
to  its  members,  You  cannot  work  piece-work.  We 
won't  allow  our  members  to  introduce  piece-work 
in  a  factory  where  the  practice  has  not  been  in 
vogue.  We  say  to  our  members  you  can  work  under 
the  system  for  the  time  being  in  a  factory  where  it 
does  exist  because  it  is  already  there,  but  when  you 
come  into  our  Association  you  must  not  introduce 
the  system.  This  applies  alike  to  other  systems, 
namely,  premium  plans,  gang-profit-sharing,  or  the 
contract  system.  We  also  say  to  our  members, 
"You  can  operate  a  number  of  machines  of  certain 
classes,  but  there  are  other  classes  of  machines 
of  which  you  can  operate  only  one."  There  are 
thousands  of  machines  in  the  factories  and  work- 
shops of  the  United  States  where  the  men  are  oper- 
ating more  than  one  of  them.  This  is  certainly  not 
a  restriction  on  output.  Automatic  machines  of 
every  character  have  been  introduced  in  the  work- 
shops of  this  country  and  there  has  been  no  re- 


136 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


striction  placed  upon  them  at  all.  On  the  contrary 
we  have  encouraged,  by  our  own  genius  and  in- 
vention, the  modern  and  improved  up-to-date 
machine,  in  order  that  we  maybe  able  to  compete 
for  the  markets  of  the  world. 

The  mere  fact  that  labor  dares  to  question  certain 
things  in  the  modern  factories  of  to-day  is  looked 
upon  at  once  by  the  employer  and  the  professional 
systematizer  as  a  restriction  on  output,  but  if  it 
were  not  for  the  position  taken  by  organized  labor 
the  men  and  women  who  are  the  bone  and  sinew  of 
our  country  would  be  walking  the  streets  and  the 
boys  and  girls  would  be  performing  the  work  in  the 
factories,"  workshops,  etc. 

If  you  want  evidence  of  the  non-restriction  of  out- 
put go  into  the  shoe  factory.  Where  a  few  years 
ago  a  shoemaker  was  employed  now  he  is  only  part 
of  a  shoemaker,  and  to  a  very  large  degree  men 
have  disappeared  from  the  shoe  factory.  Women, 
boys  and  girls  are  found  there  now.  Go  into  a  nail 
factory,  where  a  few  years  ago  nails  were  made  by 
hand.  To-day  they  are  forged  by  a  machine  faster 
than  the  human  mind  can  count  them.  Does  this 
look  like  restriction  of  output?  Many  of  these 
machines  are  operated  by  little  boys  and  girls,  and 
in  many  of  the  factories  the  larger  number  of  ma- 
chines are  being  operated  by  girls.  There  has  been 
no  effort  towards  restriction  of  the  machines.  There 
may  have  been  an  isolated  case,  but  as  a  whole  organ- 
ized labor  stands  for  improved,  modern  and  up-to- 
date  appliances  for  operating  the  American  work- 
shops. 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  137 

We  believe  that  with  a  proper  superintendency 
of  the  factory,  the  proper  treatment  of  the  employees 
and  the  introduction  of  a  plan  such  as  that  outlined 
by  Mr.  Carpenter,  representing  the  labor  depart- 
ment of  the  National  Cash  Register  Company's  works, 
where  grievances  can  be  amicably  and  speedily  ad- 
justed, that  it  is  possible  under  the  day  plan  to  se- 
cure for  such  an  institution  an  output  equal  in 
quantity  to  any  plant  where  the  piece-work  or 
similar  system  may  be  in  operation ;  while  in  quality 
the  work  would  exceed  to  a  large  degree  that  pro- 
duced in  the  piece-work  factory. 

A  constant  effort,  apparently,  on  the  part  of  cer- 
tain manufacturers  and  certain  professional  theor- 
ists to  poison  the  minds  of  the  employers  against 
organized  labor  and  especially  against  the  leaders 
of  organized  labor,  is  a  direct  cause  for  many  of  the 
complaints  heard  from  the  employer's  side  of  this 
question.  When  an  employer  can  only  see  through 
one  glass,  and  that  glass  indicates  increased  output, 
regardless  of  the  conditions  under  which  this  end  may 
be  secured,  he  will  unquestionably  find  himself 
sooner  or  later  involved  in  some  sort  of  a  tangle  with 
his  employees.  The  workman  knows  full  well 
that  the  employer  of  labor  is  not  stating  facts  when 
he  says  we  are  going  to  introduce  the  piece-work 
or  premium  plan  in  order  that  you  may  have  a  bet- 
ter opportunity  of  increasing  your  income.  The 
workman  knows  full  well  that  this  proposition  has 
a  very  large  string  attached  to  it,  and  that  when  he 
has  worked  himself  up  to  the  highest  proficiency 
the  goal  at  which  he  is  aiming  is  always  moved  fur- 


138  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

ther  back  and  he  must  start  over,  and  finally  the 
post  is  moved  so  far  that  he  is  compelled  to  give  up 
his  position  in  disgust.  He  has  become  discouraged, 
and  those  who  come  after  him  usually  find  that  the 
pace-maker  has  established  an  output  which  they 
must  come  up  to  or  their  services  are  not  required. 

We  are  told  that  if  we  will  pitch  in,  work,  hustle 
and  increase  the  output,  the  prices  will  not  be  cut 
and  that  we  will  be  fairly  dealt  with;  but  I  chal- 
lenge any  one  in  this  room  to  cite  a  case  where  piece- 
work, premium  plan  or  other  systems  have  been 
introduced  that  the  prices  have  not  been  cut.  I 
have  traveled  all  over  this  country  and  portions  of 
Europe;  have  interviewed  men,  not  only  in  my  own 
trade  but  other  walks  of  life,  who  have  worked  under 
the  piece-work  and  similar  systems.  I  have  yet  to* 
find  one  who  has  worked  under  such  a  system  for  a 
reasonable  length  of  time  who  has  not  the  same 
complaint  to  offer — the  prices  have  been  cut.  You 
say,  make  a  contract  for  a  year  or  five  years.  This 
would  not  cure  the  evil,  for  if  the  employer  and  the 
employees  entered  into  a  contract  for  five  years  and 
the  employees  had  increased  the  output  and  thus 
temporarily  increased  their  wages,  there  are  em- 
ployers who  would,  if  they  could  not  violate  their 
contract  in  any  other  way,  close  down  their  works 
indefinitely,  pay  off  all  the  employees,  and  at  an 
early  date  reorganize  the  factory  and  open  it  up 
again  to  new  employees.  There  can  be  no  fairness 
under  the  systems  in  question  until  such  time  as  the 
employers  and  employees  are  thoroughly  organized, 
as  was  cited  by  Mr.  Commons  in  his  paper  this 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  139 

morning.  Then  both  sides  will  recognize  the  rights 
of  the  other,  and  so-called  restrictions  of  output 
will  disappear,  be  cause  the  two  organizations  will 
meet  in  conference  and  adjust  their  differences. 
The  rights  of  the  weak  as  well  as  the  strong  work- 
man will  receive  consideration.  The  pace-maker 
will  disappear;  the  industrious  workman  will  be 
used  as  an  example  for  others  to  imitate,  and  the 
day  of  pitting  the  strong,  energetic,  active  man 
against  the  less  fortunate  will  be  a  thing  of  the  past. 

It  is  said  by  many  employers  who  desire  to  intro- 
duce the  piece-work  and  other  systems,  "We  are  not 
going  to  base  the  price  upon  the  speediest  workman 
in  our  factory,  but  we  will  take  an  average."  That 
is  all  very  well  in  theory,  but  history  proves  to  us 
that  such  is  not  the  case,  and  it  is  not  reasonable  to 
suppose  that  such  a  plan  would  be  put  into  oper- 
ation. This  is  a  cold,  business  world.  The  manu- 
facturing institutions  of  our  country  are  combining 
each  day;  are  now  being  controlled  by  Boards  of 
Directors;  individual  owners  are  passing  away. 
What  peculiar  interest  has  a  Board  of  Directors 
in  the  every-day  life  of  the  workmen  employed  in 
their  factories  except  to  secure  the  highest  possible 
output  at  the  lowest  possible  cost?  They  cry  out 
for  dividends.  They  know  not  the  workmen. 
They  care  less  who  they  are ;  how  they  live ;  where 
they  live.  This  does  not  interest  them  at  all  so 
long  as  profits  and  dividends  are  being  declared. 

Supposing  I  had  a  piece-work  job  and  had  in- 
creased the  output,  thus  temporarily  increasing 
my  wages, .and  other  workmen  in  the  factory  were 


140 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


not  so  fortunate,  many  things  probably  militating 
against  their  success.  When  the  directory  of  the 
company  has  its  meeting,  carefully  scrutinizing  the 
workings  of  the  factory,  and  finds  that  one  or  more 
men  have  made  more  money  than  others,  they  say 
at  once,  "Get  rid  of  the  men  who  cannot  produce 
as  much  as  the  best  man  you  have."  By  these 
means  you  reduce  the  fixed  cost  of  the  plant.  The 
weaker  and  less  speedy  men  are  discharged;  others 
are  taken  on  and  they  are  told  that  "John  Brown 
or  Bill  Smith  is  capable  of  producing  so  much  or 
turning  out  so  many  pieces  of  work  per  day ;  you  are 
expected  to  do  the  same."  Instead  of  the  average 
day's  work  becoming  the  standard  the  pace-maker 
has  established  the  living  rate  and  set  the  standard 
of  life  for  all  the  workmen  in  the  factory.  Or- 
ganized labor  says  this  condition  is  absolutely 
wrong,  for  it  has  a  tendency  to  lower  the  standard 
of  manhood,  to  lower  wages,  and  to  cultivate  man's 
most  selfish  nature,  thus  reducing  the  standard  of 
citizenship,  and  as  a  consequence  the  markets  of 
the  world  gradually  slip  away  from  us.  Organized 
labor  stands  for  just  the  opposite — higher  manhood; 
higher  living;  cultivation  of  all  that  is  good  in  man; 
getting  more  to-day  and  more  to-morrow,  and  thus 
elevating  the  American  citizen  to  the  highest  stand- 
ard of  ability  as  a  mechanic;  capable  of  competing 
for  the  markets  of  the  world;  enjoying  the  shortest 
possible  work  day  with  the  highest  possible  wages 
paid  in  any  of  the  civilized  countries  of  the  world. 

The    statement    that    organized    labor    interferes 
with  the  rights  of  capital  is  absurd.     It  is  nonsense, 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  141 

and  the  man  who  makes  these  statements  is  ignor- 
ant of  the  workings  of  organized  labor;  knows  not 
of  what  he  speaks.  Organized  labor  aims  to  bring 
the  employer  and  employee  closer  together.  This 
is  the  work  of  the  leaders;  instead  of  advocating 
strikes  and  boycotts  the  leader's  time  is  occupied 
to  a  very  great  degree  in  avoiding  these  very  things 
which  we  are  charged  with  doing.  Organized 
labor  believes  in  meeting  capital  more  than  half 
way;  sitting  down  at  the  round  table  and  thresh- 
ing out  any  differences  that  may  exist,  but  the 
trouble  has  been,  the  seed  of  hatred  towards  the 
leaders  of  organized  labor  was  sown  in  the  early 
history  of  our  country,  and  there  are  yet  a  few  em- 
ployers who  have  refused  to  modernize  their  busi- 
ness or  their  methods  of  treating  with  their  workmen. 
But  the  energetic,  up-to-date  employer  appreciates 
the  fact  that  we  are  living  in  a  rapid  age;  that  the 
industrial  conditions  have  been  revolutionized;  that 
organized  labor  is  here  to  stay  and  that  it  is  best 
to  meet  the  workmen  in  their  joint  capacity,  or  the 
representatives  of  organized  labor,  with  a  view  of 
bringing  about  an  amicable  adjustment  of  all  differ- 
ences that  may  exist  and  in  the  end  entering  into 
a  joint  agreement  whereby  employer  and  employee 
will  feel  interested  in  the  success  of  each  other. 

The  National  Civic  Federation  is  doing  its  part 
in  this  direction.  Employer  and  employee  have 
been  brought  together;  disputes  have  been  adjusted 
when  they  existed,  and  disputes  have  been  avoided 
by  mutual  conferences  and  mutual  agreements.  I 
believe  that  the  employer  and  employee  alike  are 


142 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


beginning  to  have  more  respect  for  the  views  of 
each  other  than  in  former  days.  As  an  evidence 
of  this,  our  meeting  here  to-day.  We  have  with 
us  men  engaged  in  the  various  walks  of  life,  pro- 
fessors, business  men,  laboring  men;  all  respecting 
the  opinions  of  the  other ;  realizing  we  are  all  human ; 
liable  to  error;  yet  I  believe  conceding  that  we  are 
all  aiming  in  one  direction,  that  of  bringing  peace 
and  prosperity  to  all  of  God's  common  family. 
All  are  doing  their  part  towards  furnishing  some- 
thing that  will  make  the  sleigh  run  a  little  more 
smoothly  over  the  rough  and  rocky  road. 

My  friends,  I  do  not  desire  to  take  up  any  more 
of  your  valuable  time,  only  to  say  on  behalf  of  the 
men  that  I  have  the  honor  of  representing,  who 
are  constantly  confronted  with  the  piece-work 
and  other  similar  systems,  that  as  a  whole  we  are  in 
opposition  to  those  practices,  not  because  we  are 
desirous  in  any  manner  of  limiting  the  capacity 
of D  the  workshops  of  our  country,  but  because  we 
believe  they  are  wrong  in  principle,  wrong  in  prac- 
tice; and  that  the  end  to  which  we  are  all  desirous 
of  reaching  will  not  be  secured  through  the  introduc- 
tion of  systems  which  have  proven  to  us  in  the  past 
to  mean  a  decreased  wage,  and  a  degraded  manhood. 

I  believe  we  will  yet  strike  a  happy  medium  of  all 
our  complaints,  where  charges  of  injustice  will  not 
be  held  against  either  side;  the  professional  ad- 
vocate of  piece-work,  premium-plan  and  similar 
plans  will  disappear,  and  the  employer  and  em- 
ployee will  sit  down  together  and  in  their  own  way 
solve  the  problems  of  production,  hours  and  wages. 


INDUSTRIAL 


143 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  Continuing  the  discussion  along 
this  line,  I  will  now  introduce  Mr.  Henry  White, 
Secretary  of  the  United  Garment  Workers  of  Amer- 
ica. 

MR.  MOSELY:  May  I  put  one  question  before  this 
is  taken  up? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Certainly.  I  might  have  said 
if  any  of  these  speeches  bring  up  any  questions  on 
which  discussion  is  desired,  we  will  be  glad  to  hear 
from  anybody. 

MR.  MOSELY:  You  just  now  referred  to  a  remark 
made  by  Mr.  Barnes  in  regard  to  a  certain  factory. 
I  was  very  much  struck  by  those  remarks  of  Mr. 
Barnes  yesterday,  because  he  referred  to  the  factory 
as  being  unfit  really  for  men  to  work  in,  where  the 
sanitary  conditions  were  bad,  and  where  everything 
was  not  at  air  of  the  idealistic  character  that  both 
employers  and  employees  like.  He  did  not  men- 
tion the  name  of  the  factory,  but  you  have  men- 
tioned the  name  of  a  factory  which  I  have  not 
heard  either  confirmed  or  contradicted.  Now  I  should 
like  to  say— 

MR.  JAMES  O'CONNELL:  I  asked  Mr.  Barnes  to; 
confirm  it  and  he  nodded  his  head. 

MR.  MOSELY:  If  Mr.  Barnes  has  confirmed  it, 
that  settles  the  question.  I  have  been  through 
that  factory  myself  upon  more  than  one  occasion; 
more  than  twice.  I  do  not  pretend  to  be  an  expert, 
to  say  as  to  whether  that  factory  is  being  run  under 
conditions,  from  a  machinist's  point  of  view,  of 
the  very  best,  but  what  has  struck  me  is  this,  that 
that  shop  is  non-union.  It  employs  a  very  large 


I44  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

number  of  men.  The  union  has  never  come  in 
there,  and  the  men  apparently  are  all  satisfied 
and  never  have  struck.  Now  if  those  conditions 
are  so  extremely  bad,  why  is  it  that  year  after  year 
those  men  do  not  strike?  That  seems  to  me  to  be 
rather  a  pertinent  point  in  connection  with  this 
question. 

MR.  O'CONNELL:  Mr.  Mosely,  I  would  say  it  is 
true  that  the  non-union  men  at  the  Baldwin  Loco- 
motive Works  have  never  struck,  as  far  as  I  know. 
But  in  the  Baldwin  Locomotive  shops — I  don't 
wish  to  specify  them  in  particular — but  in  that 
factory  they  have  a  system  somewhat  different 
from  that  in  force  in  most  other  factories,  and  that 
is  the  contract  sharing  system.  One  man  takes 
a  contract  for  building  a  certain  portion  of  a  loco- 
motive. He  pays  those  who  work  on  that  par- 
ticular job,  himself.  He  takes  a  contract,  say,  for 
putting  a  cylinder  on  locomotives;  $100  for  put- 
ting every  cylinder  on  a  locomotive.  If  he  can  get 
men  to  work  for  him  for  fifty  cents  a  day,  if  he  can 
drive  them  and  can  sweat  them  as  much  as  he  can, 
the  more  he  makes.  That  is  the  system.  That 
is  the  sweating  system  there;  they  sweat  the  men. 
They  don't  use  a  small  hammer  any  more  in  Bald- 
win's; you  have  got  to  use  a  double  handled  ham- 
mer there.  (Cries  of  hear,  hear.) 

DR  WM.  S.  RAINSFORD  (Rector  of  St.  George's 
Episcopal  Church) :  Apropos  of  one  thing  you  said 
about  limiting  the  apprentices,  now  isn't  it  true 
that  if  you  start  on  a  theory  in  which  you  say  the 
number  of  apprentices  in  a  certain  concern  should 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  145 

be  limited,  because  if  you  don't  limit  them  you 
practically  disappoint  the  hopes  of  these  young 
men  as  they  go  towards  manhood,  you  rele- 
gate to  yourselves  a  knowledge  of  the  conditions 
in  that  concern  and  of  the  whole  country  at  large, 
which  is  a  very  difficult  thing  to  assume?  You 
gauge  not  only  the  advance  individually  in  one 
plant,  but  all  over  the  United  States.  And  let 
me  add  to  my  question  one  more.  I  am  aware, 
and,  of  course,  I  suppose  you  are,  that  year  after 
year  there  is  a  very  large  increase  in  the  number  of 
trained  workmen  who  come  from  Scandinavia  and 
from  Germany — admirable  workmen  they  are — 
who  come  to  New  York,  and,  escaping  the  contract 
labor  law,  get  work  in  New  York,  and  for  several 
large  firms,  which  are  known  to  many  gentlemen, 
no  doubt,  in  this  room — get  excellent  wages;  in 
some  cases,  get  an  increase  on  union  wages;  spend 
three,  four,  five  or  six  months  in  this  country,  and 
go  back  to  the  Old  Country  to  spend  the  money 
they  have  liberally  made  here,  proving  thereby, 
that  the  demand  for  skilled  labor  is  so  great  to-day 
in  the  great  centers,  that  the  very  largest  firms  are 
not  able  to  meet  it  and  are  filling  out  and  adding 
to  the  number  of  thoroughly  skilled  laborers  by 
drawing  largely  on  Scandinavia  and  Germany, 
many  of  whom  are  coming  over  and  staying  five  or 
six  months,  and  then  going  back  with  their  earnings. 
Now  I  think  that  is  a  question  that  demonstrates 
what  is  radically  a  wrong  and  mistaken  idea,  of 
limiting  the  education  of  the  youth  of  the  land. 
MR.  O'CONNELL:  Now  I  desire  to  say  in  answer 


I46  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

to  that  question,  simply  to  ask  him  this:  Isn't  that 
an  ideal  situation  for  your  German  friends  to  find 
here,  rather  than  to  come  here  and  find  the  trade 
crowded  with  boys,  and  not  be  able  to  get  work 
at  all?  I  mean  to  say,  if  you  convey  the  idea  that 
by  limitation  of  apprentices  in  trade — and  I  speak 
only  of  my  trade;  other  trades  have  different  num- 
bers employed — but  if  by  limitation,  if  you  put  it 
that  way,  isn't  it  best  to  have  the  German  machin- 
ist come  here  and  get  $20  a  week  for  working  54 
hours — isn't  that  an  ideal  state  to  have  exist  here 
rather  than  to  have  him  come  here  and  only  get  $10  a 
week? 

DR.  RAINSFORD:  That  does  not  exactly  fit  the 
question.  That  man's  coming  to  this  country  and 
staying  four  or  five  or  six  months,  and  going  back 
to  the  Old  Country  to  spend  his  earnings,  does  not 
help  the  interests  of  this  country,  or  build  up  the 
great  democratic  principles  that  exist  here.  I  do 
not  want  to  be  misunderstood,  but  when  a  union 
takes  a  step  like  that  they  are  going  against  the 
everlasting  laws,  and  are  bound  to  be  beaten.  You 
cannot  limit  the  education  and  opportunities  of 
the  young  of  this  land.  The  intention  doubtless 
is  absolutely  good,  but  we  do  not  recognize  the 
place  we  hold  between  the  two  conditions,  and  we 
do  not  recognize  the  fact  that  it  is  not  right  in  prin- 
ciple to  limit  the  opportunities  for  education  of  our 
young  men. 

MR.  O'CONNELL:  The  gentleman  speaks  of  demo- 
cratic principles;  that  is  a  very  beautiful  sentiment 
and  always  strikes  a  responsive  chord,  and  I  ap- 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


147 


predate  that.  But  there  is  also  the  hard  business 
side  of  this  question  which  has  got  to  be  looked  at, 
and  we  have  passed  through  the  hard  knocks  in 
this  country  and  got  up  to  that  position  where  your 
German  friend  can  come  over  here  and  work  under 
fair  conditions,  and  it  is  by  hard  knocks  that  we 
have  come  to  the  conclusion  that  there  should  be 
a  certain  reasonable  limitation  upon  apprentices 
in  this  country  in  every  trade. 

A  DELEGATE:  I  do  not  see  that  Mr.  Mosely's 
question  has  been  answered  as  yet. 

MR.  O'CONNELL:  Mr.  Mosely  did  not  continue 
to  ask  that  question,  because  he  did  not  recognize 
that  Mr.  Barnes  had  confirmed  my  statements. 

MR.  BARNES:  I  am  rather  sorry  I  am  to  be  forced 
into  that  question  and  would  much  rather  have 
my  observations  taken  in  the  abstract,  or  as  not 
referring  to  any  particular  shop.  I  think  that  is 
only  fair  to  every  shop  in  this  country,  that  my 
remarks  should  not  be  taken  as  referring  to  any 
particular  shop. 

MR.  GOMPERS:  If  I  may  be  permitted  I  should 
like  to  take  a  moment  or  two  to  say  something  in 
connection  with  the  questions  propounded  by  Mr. 
Rainsford.  I  suppose  in  desiring  to  speak  of  a 
higher  position  my  friend  Mr.  O'Connell  did  not 
take  cognizance  of  the  question  put,  and  did  not 
answer  it. 

In  regard  to  the  matter  of  apprentices,  this  must 
be  taken  into  consideration;  that  is,  that  the  op- 
portunities for  apprenticeship  have  gone  in  Amer- 
ican industries,  and  when  we  talk  of  the  oppor- 


I48  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

tunities  for  a  boy  to  learn  a  trade,  the  opportunity 
of  an  education  in  the  trade,  we  are  talking  of  the 
past.  We  are  not  taking  cognizance  of  the  fact 
that  the  division  and  sub-division  and  classification 
of  labor  has  eliminated  the  question  of  apprentice- 
ship, the  question  of  apprentices  learning  a  trade. 
What  the  boys  now  learn  is  a  very  infinitesimal 
part  of  a  trade.  The  attempt  to  have  an  ap- 
apprenticeship  system  is  simply  another  name  for 
the  wholesale  introduction  into  one  or  two  or  a 
few  establishments  of  a  large  number  of  boys,  elim- 
inating the  question  of  wages  to  adult  labor,  the 
employment  of  one  as  an  expert,  and  the  plant  of 
which  is  turned  into  a  nursery.  This  must  be 
borne  in  mind,  that  it  is  not  a  question  of  limiting 
the  number  of  apprentices  for  a  trade,  but 
it  is  the  limitation  or  the  regulation  of  the  number 
of  apprentices  in  each  particular  establishment  of  a 
trade.  While  in  the.  aggregate  that  may  seem  a 
limitation,  yet  in  any  particular  trade  or  classifi- 
cation of  trade  in  which  there  would  be  any  election 
the. employer  could,  and  many  of  them  would,  and 
many  of  them  do,  introduce  into  their  plants  a 
system  of  bringing  an  immense  number  of  boys  in 
the  plant,  and  with  the  superintendency  of  an 
expert  the  plant  is  enabled  to  get  out  some  sort  of  an 
output,  some  sort  of  a  product,  which  is  brought  into 
competition  with  the  fairer  manufacturers  in  that 
industry,  and  tends  to  force  down  the  selling  price, 
and  consequently  the  wages  received  by  the  men. 
It  is  because  of  this  immense  classification  and 
division  and  sub-division  of  labor  that  has  gone  on 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  149 

in  our  country  that  the  boys  have  no  opportunity 
to  learn  a  trade  and  the  companies  and  manufacturers 
and  employers  find  it  necessary  to  send  over  to 
European  countries  to  send  some  of  their  skilled 
workmen  here.  The  great  classification  and  divis- 
ion and  sub-division  have  not  gone  on  in  those 
countries  to  the  same  extent  that  they  have  in  our 
own.  (Cries  of  Hear,  Hear,  and  applause.) 

MR.  JOHN  MARTIN:  Would  Mr.  Gompers  therefore 
support  trade  schools,  which  would  give  oppor- 
tunities for  the  boys  to  learn  the  trade,  under,  of 
course,  some  regulation  by  the  trades  unions  to 
prevent  excessive  filling  up  of  a  particular  trade  ? 

MR.  GOMPERS  :  I  should  be  opposed  to  trade  schools. 
I  should  favor  and  do  favor  manual  training  schools. 
The  trade  schools  have  demonstrated  themselves 
to  be  the  hothouse  of  strike  breakers  in  the  United 
States.  The  training  schools  have  given  the  young 
men  of  our  country  a  knowledge  of  the  use  of  tools, 
making  them  more  easily  adapted  to  learning  the 
different  branches  of  any  particular  trade. 

MR.  MOSELY:  Mr.  Chairman,  may  I  be  allowed  to 
put  a  question  to  Mr.  Gompers  as  representing 
labor?  I  have  not  heard  any  reply  made  to  my 
question.  I  have  heard  a  description  of  men  working 
under  conditions  that  are  unfit  for  human  beings — 
a  very  large  number  of  men  working  in  perhaps 
almost  the  largest  of  any  factory  in  the  United 
States.  Why  is  it  that  these  men  are  apparently 
satisfied  with  their  condition,  and  why  is  it  that 
the  union  has  not  come  in  there,  and  why  is  it  that 
year  after  year  has  gone  by  and  there  has  been  no 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


trouble  and  no  strikes?     And  these  men   I  under- 
stand uniformly  earn  more  than  union  laborers. 

MR.  O'CONNELL:  I  have  but  one  thing  to  say  to 
Mr.  Mosely,  and  that  is,  he  is  absolutely  mistaken 
in  his  statement  that  the  wages  at  Baldwin's  Loco- 
motive Shops  are  larger  than  union  wages.  He  is 
absolutely  mistaken  in  that  statement;  absolutely 
incorrect. 

MR.  GOMPERS:  Mr.  Mosely  asked  me  this  question, 
see  if  I  comprehend  it:  How  does  it  happen  that 
if  such  unfair  and  improper  conditions  obtain  in 
that  particular  establishment  to  which  reference 
has  been  made,  that  no  protest  has  been  made  by 
the  men?  Unionism  has  not  taken  root  there.  No 
strike  of  any  character.  My  answer  is  this:  That 
in  the  whole  history  of  the  world  you  will  find  that 
the  people  whose  conditions  are  the  worst  are  those 
the  least  capable  of  resistance  and  protest,  and  that 
is  equally  true  in  industry  as  it  is  in  political' life. 

A  DELEGATE  :  Cannot  those  men  strike? 

MR.  GOMPERS:  There  are  in  that  establishment 
to  which  reference  has  been  made  small  captains  of 
industry.  Men  who  are  the  employers  of  five  or 
six  other  men,  and  each  man  is  a  little  minimized 
captain  of  industry  himself. 

THE  DELEGATE:  Well,  if  those  men  are  improperly 
paid  why  can't  they  strike  against  that  little  cap- 
tain? 

MR.  GOMPERS:  I  don't  know  why  they  cannot 
strike,  except  they  may  have  had  all  ambition  crushed 
out  of  them. 

MR.  MOSELY:     I  wish  now  to  make  one  statement 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE, 


IS1 


in  regard  to  the  Baldwin  Locomotive  Works.  I 
am  sorry  their  name  has  been  called  into  question, 
but  I  think  it  only  fair  to  the  Baldwin  Locomotive 
Works  to  make  this  statement:  I  saw  one  of  the 
members  of  the  firm  and  I  asked  him  what  per- 
centage of  union  men  were  there.  He  said  the 
percentage  was  very  small,  practically  none;  perhaps 
one  in  a  hundred  or  over.  I  said  how  do  you  account 
for  the  fact  that  you  have  never  had  trouble  in  this 
factory?  He  said,  "Because  we  are  fair  to  the  men 
and  the  men  recognize  it."  Now  I  think  that  is 
a  statement  that  will  go  a  long  ways  to  convince  any 
fair  minded  man.  You  have  been  shown  the  thou- 
sands of  men  working  under  conditions  that  on  one 
side  it  is  urged  are  not  human.  There  is  no  trouble; 
there  are  no  strikes,  and  the  proprietor  of  that  es- 
tablishment informed  me  as  one  who  is  seeking 
information,  it  is  because  the  men  trust  them 
and  know  they  will  treat  them  fairly. 

MR.  GOMPERS:  The  people  of  India  do  not  pro- 
test there,  but  they  are  starving  by  the  millions. 

MR.  HANNA:  I  now  have  the  pleasure  of  intro- 
ducing Mr.  White. 

THE  PROBLEMS  OF  MACHINERY. 

MR.  HENRY  WHITE  (General  Secretary  of  the 
United  Garment  Workers  of  America):  Mr.  Chair- 
man and  Gentlemen. — The  subject  assigned  to  me 
I  approach  with  considerable  misgiving,  because  the 
problem  of  machinery  involves  the  entire  labor 
question,  for  it  is  the  complexity  of  conditions  due 
to  machinery  that  has  given  us  the  labor  problem. 


152 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


This  age  is  pre-eminent  in  mechanical  achievement ; 
still,  many  believe  that  labor  saving  methods  are 
detrimental,  that  only  a  few  profit  by  them,  to  the 
disadvantage  of  the  rest.  The  strange  parodox 
is  thus  presented  of  an  ingenious  and  enterprising 
people  actually  doubting  the  value  of  means  that 
renders  labor  more  effective  and  increases  human 
capacity. 

The  confusion  upon  this  subject  is  due  to  the 
difficulty  of  understanding  the  workings  of  our 
complete  industrial  system,  the  inability  to  dis- 
criminate between  the  benefits  society  derives  from 
labor  saving  methods,  the  disturbances  they  cause, 
and  the  abuses  associated  with  them. 

The  economy  of  a  primitive  community  that  con- 
sumes all  it  produces  is  readily  understood.  It  is 
seen  how  every  increase  in  the  productiveness  of 
the  members  adds  to  the  general  prosperity,  and 
how  each  one  participates  in  the  wealth  of  the 
whole.  If  the  farmer  has  abundant  crops,  the 
tailor,  the  shoemaker,  the  blacksmith,  obtain  cheaper 
food.  If  the  other  workers  through  improved  tools 
are  enabled  to  produce  cheaper,  the  farmer,  in- 
cluding the  workmen,  receive  cheaper  goods  or 
better  service.  The  purchasing  power  of  money 
is  thus  increased,  and  each  one  is  enabled  to  buy 
more  with  his  earnings  and  indulge  in  new  com- 
forts. The  new  occupations  that  in  turn  open  up 
give  employment  to  those  who  happen  to  be  dis- 
placed by  improved  machinery.  This  result  is 
dependent  upon  a  wholesome  (not  ruinous), 
competition  being  maintained,  so  that  profits  will 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  153 

be  kept  down  to  a  minimum,  and  provided  the 
wage  earners  are  able  to  command  a  just  compen- 
sation, and  prevent  wages  from  being  decreased 
whenever  the  cost  of  living  is  lessened.  ^The  prin- 
ciple of  co-operation  that  underlies  private  enter- 
prise is  thus  evident.  It  works  out  in  a  rough  way, 
and  more  perfectly  as  the  defects  of  the  system 
are  corrected.  In  a  more  developed  society  with 
its  highly  specialized  and  therefore  more  efficient 
methods,  only  a  part  of  the  plan  is  observed  at  a 
time,  and  its  intricate  operations  become  confusing. 
Suddenly  the  laws  that  work  so  beneficently  in 
the  small  community  appear  to  be  reversed.  Labor 
saving  methods  become  a  calamity,  because  the 
effect  is  to  interfere  with  present  pursuits  and 
deprive  some  of  their  accustomed  means  of  a  liveli- 
hood, to  render  useless  skill  acquired  after  a  life- 
long training.  The  benefits  all  seem  to  accrue  to 
the  person  who  first  uses  an  invention,  while  the 
ones  displaced  are  apparently  shut  out  of  the  in- 
dustrial system.  It  is  not  noticed  how  they  are 
gradually  absorbed  into  other  channels  of  employ- 
ment that  open  up  as  the  cost  of  production  is  de- 
creased. If  such  were  not  the  case,  the  whole  in- 
dustrial mechanism  would  soon  come  to  a  standstill, 
considering  the  progress  of  inventions  supplemented 
by  the  army  of  aliens  that  arrive  yearly  and  the 
increasing  proportion  of  women  breadwinners.  An 
adjustment  coincident  with  the  displacement  must 
evidently  take  place  somewhere  or  the  number  of 
unemployed  would  be  appalling.  This  is  the  pith 
of  the  problem.  The  example  cited  of  the  prim- 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


itive  community  explains  how  by  lessening  the  cost 
of  commodities  the  spending  capacity  of  the  con- 
sumer is  increased,  and  in  that  way  industry  ex- 
pands. The  immigrants  and  the  women  introduced 
into  the  factory  become  in  turn  buyers,  and  hence 
create  a  demand  for  goods  that  results  in  the  em- 
ployment of  as  many  as  they  have  displaced.  The 
evil  of  immigration  is  not  that  the  aliens  take  the 
places  of  native  laborers,  but  rather  is  due  to  the 
crowding  into  the  most  available  occupations  that 
offer  them  the  means  to  temporarily  subsist;  to 
their  lower  standards  of  living  and  general  helpless- 
ness, all  of  which  is  taken  advantage  of,  to  the  detri- 
ment of  those  who  are  striving  to  uplift  the  stand- 
ards. The  same  applies  in  a  degree  to  the  women 
partly  dependent  upon  their  earnings,  and  who  do 
not  possess  the  ability  of  the  men  to  act  in  concert, 
and  therefore  are  made  to  accept  less  than  the 
men  for  the  same  work. 

When  the  sewing  machine  was  introduced  by 
Howe  in  1846,  I  have  heard  old  tailors  say  that 
the  direst  consequences  were  predicted,  but  instead 
of  depriving  them  of  work,  the  machine  was  the 
means  of  augmenting  it.  The  cost  of  clothing 
having  been  lessened,  the  consumption  was  vastly 
increased.  It  is  estimated  to-day  that  the  average 
person  wears  two  suits  a  year,  while  formerly,  when 
made  by  hand,  an  inferior  suit  had  to  last  a  year, 
and  often  had  to  tide  over  another  year  by  revers- 
ing the  cloth.  The  well  known  evils  of  clothing 
manufacture  are  not  the  result  of  the  machine,  but  are 
due  to  a  pernicious  system  of  work.  It  is  sought  to 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  155 

remedy  this  condition  by  manufacturing  upon  a 
large  scale.  The  substitution  of  electricity  for  horse 
power  in  the.  operation  of  street  cars  has  immensely 
expanded  this  service.  Although  an  electric  car 
goes  twice  as  fast  as  the  horse  car  and  carries  at 
least  twice  as  many  passengers,  instead  of  decreasing 
the  number  of  employees,  many  times  that  number 
are  employed.  The  patronage  simply  increases  as 
the  facilities  for  travel  are  improved. 

There  are  also  many  undertakings  that  could  not 
be  carried  on  at  all  were  it  not  for  improved  ma- 
chinery, as,  for  instance,  great  works  of  construc- 
tion, such  as  tunnels  and  bridges,  railroads  and 
steamships,  and  the  erection  of  large  buildings.  As 
self-evident  as  this  seems  when  attention  is  called 
to  it,  it  is  lost  sight  of  when  discussing  the  prob- 
lem. The  temporary  loss  of  employment  by  some 
is  alone  considered,  while  the  compensating  features 
pass  unnoticed. 

There  are  some  occupations,  however,  where  the 
perfection  of  machinery  proceeds  faster  than  the 
increased  consumption,  and  the  effect,  therefore, 
is  constantly  to  decrease  the  number  of  workmen 
required.  In  such  cases  it  is  far  better  for  the  work- 
men to  face  the  stern  realities  of  the  situation, 
and  make  up  their  minds  that  some  will  have  to 
relieve  the  pressure  by  seeking  employment  else- 
where, than  by  intensifying  the  distress  by  keeping 
in  the  trade  more  than  it  will  sustain,  otherwise 
wages  will  tend  to  lower,  or  be  prevented  from 
rising  and  work  will  become  more  unsteady.  Mr.  Gom- 
pers  has  explained  how  this  situation  can  be  best 


156  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

met — by  giving  our  young  men  a  general  training 
in  mechanics,  so  that  they  can  quickly  adapt  them- 
selves to  the  changing  occupations. 

Here  we  touch  the  vital  question  of  limitation  of 
output.  The  British  unions  are  charged  with  pur- 
suing the  policy  of  limiting  the  product  of  the  mem- 
bers as  a  means  of  providing  work  for  all.  The 
American  unions  are  also  charged  with  the  same 
tendency  as  they  gain  in  power.  The  answer  is 
that  the  restrictions  placed  upon  the  speed  of  the 
worker  are  intended  to  prevent  rushing  or  undue 
haste;  that  if  such  was  not  done  the  quickest  work- 
men would  be  made  to  set  the  pace  for  the  rest,  and 
whether  the  pay  be  based  upon  week  or  piece-work, 
the  average  wages  or  prices  will  be  determined  by 
what  the  most  rapid  workman  is  able  to  perform. 
Restrictions  imposed  for  the  purpose  of  correcting 
abuses  of  that  kind  are  clearly  justifiable.  There 
is,  however,  a  conviction  that  the  unions  go  beyond 
that;  that  the  ability  to  enforce  such  restraints 
prompts  them  to  go  further,  and  that  they  actually 
encourage  the  members  to  shirk  reasonable  tasks. 
That  is,  of  course  denied,  but  there  is  an  inducement 
for  them  to  do  so,  just  as  there  is  for  manufacturers, 
when  the  opportunity  offers,  to  create  an  artificial 
scarcity,  or  for  merchants  to  sell  inferior  or  adul- 
terated goods.  As  to  whether  their  action  is  right, 
whether  it  is  to  their  best  interests,  is  another 
question.  The  labor  unions  stand  for  high  prin- 
ciples, and  groups  of  people  or  institutions  are 
judged  by  their  performances.  It  is  the  exalted 
aim  of  the  labor  movement  that  gives  it  strength 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  157 

and  infuses  the  members  with  the  common 
spirit  essential  to  its  success.  They  are  therefore 
expected  to  be  above  the  considerations  that  actuate 
others,  and  they  would  more  firmly  establish  them- 
selves in  the  public  confidence  by  taking  the  broad 
economic  ground,  instead  of  being  influenced  by 
momentary  advantages.  As  they  are  themselves 
the  result  of  industrial  development,  they  cannot 
afford  to  stand  in  its  path. 

In  England  the  inclination  to  limit  work  is  more 
marked  than  here,  because  the  mechanic  is  unable 
to  adjust  himself  to  varying  conditions  as  readily. 
When  he  enters  a  trade,  usually  that  followed  by 
his  parent,  it  is  with  the  intention  of  staying  in  it 
for  life.  Here  workingmen  are  more  prepared  for 
changes,  and  the  division  of  labor  is  developed  to  a 
point  that  enables  them  more  quickly  to  accom- 
modate themselves  to  new  environments. 

It  is  customary  in  English  factories  for  workmen, 
when  there  is  a  shortage,  to  share  the  work  with  one 
another,  Where  this  is  done  to  tide  over  a  slack 
season  it  is  commendable,  but  where  such  is  a 
permanent  condition,  the  effect  is  demoralizing. 
The  restricting  of  output,  therefore,  follows  as  a 
policy  whenever  the  workmen  have  the  power  to 
enforce  it.  The  result  is  to  limit  their  earning 
capacity  and  prevent  their  advancement.  How 
much  better  it  would  be  to  insist  upon  a  just  share 
of  an  increasing  output?  The  American  unionist 
has  progressed  to  the  point  of  recognizing  the  futility 
of  fighting  inventions  and  has  therefore  been  re- 
signed to  them  as  an  unavoidable  evil.  He  does 


158  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

not  as  yet  appreciate  that  they  should  not  be  op- 
posed, even  if  that  could  be  done. 

The  limitation  of  apprentices  can  be  defended 
by  economic  reasons  wherever  there  are  enough  to 
do  the  work,  as  those  already  in  the  trade  have  a 
right  to  protect  their  standards  from  being  lowered 
through  an  influx  of  other  workmen  tempted  by 
the  higher  wages,  which  the  former  have  upheld. 
In  conceding  this,  it  follows  that  if  there  be  more 
workmen  than  required,  the  obligation  is  like- 
wise imposed  upon  the  unions  to  help  the  excess 
number  find  employment  somewhere  else.  If  things 
in  that  respect  are  permitted  to  take  their  course, 
the  least  competent  workmen,  by  being  without 
work,  soon  accommodate  themselves  to  other  em- 
ployment, and  in  that  way  the  normal  level  would 
be  maintained.  One  of  the  good  effects  of  the  late 
coal  strike  was  the  elimination  of  the  large  propor- 
tion of  surplus  laborers  who  found  themselves  else- 
where during  the  strike,  otherwise  they  would  have 
remained  a  hindrance  to  the  rest  in  the  belief 
that  they  were  destined  to  eke  out  a  living  where 
they  were.  While  such  is  the  conclusion  from  a 
purely  economic  point  of  view,  we  cannot  expect 
the  artisan,  losing  his  job  through  some  invention, 
to  regard  it  with  the  complacency  of  the  student, 
who  has  in  mind  the  welfare  of  the  whole  rather  than 
the  interests  of  particular  individuals.  You  can- 
not convince  him  that  industrial  harmony  and  the 
larger  interests  of  his  class  demand  that  the  super- 
fluous workmen  in  a  trade  find  work  where  their 
labor  is  needed,  where  they  can  be  of  better  service 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


159 


to  themselves  and  to  society;  but  an  understanding 
of  economic  laws  will  help  to  modify  the  severity 
of  this  situation  by  preparing  the  workers  to 
meet  it.  The  eight  hour  work-day  is  advocated 
as  a  means  of  curtailing  production  rather  than  as 
the  normal  working  time  made  possible  by  ma- 
chinery. Such  a  plea  is  an  argument  against  ma- 
chinery, and  is  based  upon  the  false  and  absurd 
notion  that  an  abundance  of  wealth  is  an  evil.  There 
may  be  too  much  of  a  particular  article,  but  there 
can  be  no  limit  to  the  variety  of  useful  things  needed, 
to  the  resources  to  be  developed,  to  the  new  fields 
of  enterprise  awaiting  cultivation.  The  one  essential 
condition  is,  as  I  have  said,  that  the  purchasing 
power  of  the  average  person  be  sufficient  to  con- 
sume the  bulk  of  the  things  produced. 

The  workman  as  a  consumer  is  a  very  important 
factor  in  production,  as  the  present  industrial  order 
is  so  constituted  that  its  well  being  is  determined 
by  the  status  of  the  working  class. 

The  insufficient  share  of  the  laborer  in  the  fruits 
of  industry  is  responsible  for  glutted  markets,  the 
bane  of  modern  enterprise,  and  it  is  hastened  by 
machinery.  In  order  to  overcome  this  predicament, 
foreign  markets  have  been  relied  upon  as  an  outlet 
for  the  surplus  goods.  During  the  early  part  of 
the  factory  system  in  England,  when  wealth  was 
vastly  multiplied,  foreign  markets  became  her  chief 
dependence,  because  of  the  impoverished  condition 
of  her  working  class,  and  it  was  even  held  by  the 
economists  of  that  period  that  it  was  unavoidable 
that  the  workers  be  reduced  to  a  bare  subsistence,  so 


j6o  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

as  to  enable  England  to  sell  goods  abroad.  In  that 
case  cheapness  was  obtained  by  sacrificing  the 
worker,  and  machinery  was  used  to  subdue  him. 
The  stupidity  of  such  a  policy  became  apparent 
in  time  by  the  dreadful  consequences.  That  ac- 
counts, in  a  measure,  for  the  laborer's  fear  of  ma- 
chinery. Under  the  conditions  described  anything 
that  intensified  the  struggle  between  them  was  rightly 
regarded  as  an  evil.  Whatever  advantages  they 
derived  from  it  as  consumers  by  obtaining  cheaper 
products  could  not  compensate  for  their  plight. 
The  foreign  markets  were  always  inadequate  as 
a  distributing  factor ,  because  of  the  small  purchas- 
ing power  of  semi  or  partly  civilized  people.  In 
our  case  it  is  estimated  that  only  five  per  cent,  of 
our  products  are  exported.  Sound  economy,  with- 
out considering  the  humane  side,  demands  that  the 
people  of  a  country  be  capable  of  consuming  what 
it  produces,  save  where  things  can  be  made  to  better 
advantage  in  one  country  and  sold  in  another, 
which  is  simply  a  method  of  specializing  effort,  and 
is  equivalent  to  a  mutual  exchange. 

Here  I  touch  very  closely  on  the  tariff  question, 
but  I  hope  my  hearers  will  not  be  alarmed.  I  won't 
drift  into  that  subject;  I  simply  want  to  emphasize 
that  the  economic  advantage  derived  by  division 
of  labor  and  specialized  effort  should  be  applied  in- 
ternationally as  well  as  locally;  that  a  country  which 
by  reason  of  its  climate,  soil,  location  and  the  ap- 
titudes of  its  people,  can  produce  certain  things  best, 
should  be  permitted  to  do  so  and  exchange  them  with 
the  products  of  other  countries  similarily  situated. 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  161 

To  summarize :  Where  the  laborer  can  offer 
no  resistance  and  the  so-called  iron  law  of  wages 
operates  to  keep  him  down  to  the  life  line,  machinery 
adds  uncertainty  to  his  other  woes.  He  is,  as 
it  were,  cut  out  of  civilization.  Wherever  he  presses 
upward  and  secures  a  larger  share  of  an  ever  enlarging 
product,  machinery  becomes  an  uplifting  force. 

The  influences  that  operate  in  favor  of  the  latter 
are  education,  which  increases  the  wants  of  the 
worker;  organization,  that  enables  him  to  participate 
directly  in  the  benefits  of  machinery,  and  a  better 
conception  of  the  relations  between  employer  and 
employed,  that  serves  to  minimize  the  hardships 
of  the  industrial  strife  and  tends  to  promote  fair  deal- 
ing. With  such  a  tendency  the  worker  is  bound 
in  time  to  become  reconciled  to  the  machine,  and 
instead  of  fighting  it  as  a  curse  will  welcome  it 
as  a  means  that  makes  possible  higher  wages  with 
shorter  hours,  while  enhancing  at  the  same  time  the 
purchasing  value  of  money — a  three-fold  gain — a 
prospect  that  makes  the  disadvantages  of  machinery 
pale  in  comparison.  . 

In  conclusion:  Useless  labor  cannot  be  justified, 
or  anything  that  limits  or  curtails  human  activity. 
Where  labor  saving  inventions  become  a  means  of 
oppression  it  would  be  wiser  to  meet  that  situation 
with  a  view  of  correcting  abuses  than  to  deprive  our- 
selves of  the  inestimable  advantages  they  afford. 
Economic  efficiency  should  be  our  objective  point, 
save  where  it  tends  to  injure  the  worker,  as  in  the 
case  of  child  labor  or  the  sweating  system.  Re- 
strictions are  commendable  that  serve  to  modify 


162  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

the  harshness  of  competition,  such  as  factory  laws 
and  trades  union  regulations,  but,  as  a  policy,  ad- 
vancement is  in  the  direction  of  increased  economy. 
Like  the  mariner  in  the  night,  we  should  be  guided 
by  this  fixed  star,  instead  of  varying  our  course  by 
every  shifting  light  that  comes  into  view.  (Ap- 
plause.) 


The  afternoon  session  was  called  to  order  by  the 
Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  first  speaker  this  afternoon  is 
Professor  George  Gunton,  of  the  Institute,  of  Social 
Economics,  who  will  speak  upon  the  eight  hour  day. 

THE   EIGHT    HOUR    DAY. 

OHORTENING  the  working  day  is  a  necessary 
O  accompaniment  of  modern  progress.  I  say 
modern  progress  because  that  might  not  be  true  of 
all  progress.  While  the  essential  element  in  prog- 
ress is  the  same  under  all  conditions  and  in  all 
states  of  civilization,  the  methods  and  conditions 
which  promote  progress  differ  in  the  different  states 
of  civilization.  Progress  is  always  a  change  or 
movement  towards  a  more  varied  experience  and 
complex  state  of  living,  and  finally  greater  individ- 
uality. The  one  condition  essential  to  this  move- 
ment is  opportunity.  That  is  fundamental  and 
universal;  but  opportunity  is  not  always  the  same. 
What  is  opportunity  in  one  country  or  state  of 
society  may  be  the  reverse  in  another;  yet  oppor- 
tunity is  always  necessary.  In  some  states  of  so- 
ciety opportunity  involves  discipline,  pressure,  al- 
most coercion,  in  another,  repose  and  social  ex- 
perience. For  instance,  where  life  is  simple  the 

163 


1 64  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

needs  are  few,  the  means  of  satisfying  them  are  too  easy 
to  stimulate  activity,  and  there  is  little  precision, 
order  or  discipline. 

This  was  largely  the  condition  in  Europe  through- 
out the  Middle  Ages ;  it  is  characteristic  of  all  periods 
of  slavery  and  serfdom,  and  largely  of  hand-labor 
methods  of  production.  This  social  condition  repre- 
sents the  same  relative  degree  of  civilization,  no 
matter  in  what  century  it  occurs.  Russia  is  in  the 
fourteenth  century  as  literally  as  England  was  in 
the  reign  of  Edward  III.  In  that  period  the  in- 
fluences which  stimulated  progress  were  not  so 
much  leisure  as  work.  With  the  growth  of  industry 
and  development  of  the  factory  system  this  condition 
underwent  a  radical  change;  the  masses  became 
important  to  society  and  civilization,  not  merely 
as  workers,  but  also  as  consumers  and  citizens. 
Historically,  the  first  phase  of  progress  is  the  devel- 
opment of  the  masses  into  workers;  the  next  is 
their  development  into  consumers  and  citizens. 
With  the  dawn  of  the  factory  system  came  this 
second  phase  of  progress.  Under  modern  industry 
with  its  enormous  output,  the  need  of  society  is 
not  so  much  for  more  workers  as  for  larger  con- 
sumers. 

Besides  furnishing  the  spur  to  economic  order, 
discipline  and  efficiency,  the  factory  system  in  its 
later  development  has  brought  a  democratic  ex- 
pansion of  political  power  and  representative  gov- 
ernment, greater  freedom,  greater  influence  of  the 
individual  citizen,  so  that  society  now  rests  on  a 
new  economic  and  political  foundation.  In  the  old 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  165 

regime,  laborers  were  needed  only  to  furnish  pro- 
ductive power,  and  the  aristocracy  furnished  the 
government.  Under  modern  industrialism,  both 
political  and  industrial  institutions  rest  upon  the 
masses,  who  were  excluded  from  either  economic, 
social  or  political  consideration  prior  to  the  nine- 
teenth century.  Improved  machinery  is  successful 
only  in  proportion  as  it  supplies  the  demands  and 
consumption  of  the  masses  of  laborers.  It  is  what 
the  laborers  consume  in  their  general  daily  standard 
of  living  that  furnishes  the  only  reliable  foundation 
for  the  success  of  the  most  highly  developed  methods 
and  undertakings  in  modern  industry.  As  con- 
sumers, therefore,  the  masses  have  become  the  very 
foundation  of  the  modern  market.  On  the  political 
side  they  have  become  the  determining  element. 
Prior  to  the  factory  system,  the  opinions  of  the 
laborers  were  of  no  concern.  It  was  of  no  conse- 
quence what  they  thought  or  whether  they  thought 
at  all,  and  indeed  it  was  regarded  as  rather  better 
if  they  did  not  think,  because  they  were  not  recog- 
nized elements  in  the  political  constitution  of  society. 
They  were  not  consulted,  they  had  no  effective  way 
of  registering  their  opinions,  if  they  had  any,  and  as 
a  matter  of  fact  they  had  no  need  of  an  opinion. 
Their  wants  were  so  small,  their  lives  so  monotonous, 
that  to  have  the  wherewithal  to  meet  the  meager 
needs  of  a  circumscribed  round  of  life  was  all  that 
was  necessary,  just  as  it  is  now  in  many  of  the  less 
progressive  countries  of  the  world.  But,  with  the 
growth  of  industry  and  rise  in  the  standard  of  living, 
all  this  changed.  They  not  only  came  to  be  larger 


i66  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

consumers,  but  they  came  to  have  opinions  and  ac- 
quired sufficient  power  to  demand  the  right  of  recog- 
nition for  those  opinions,  as  a  part  of  the  political 
institutions  of  the  time;  so  that  to-day  the  wage 
workers, the  great  mass,  or  as  we  like  to  call  them, 
"the  common  people,"  now  furnish  both  the  market 
basis  for  industrial  success  and  the  political  basis  for 
government. 

Opportunity,  therefore,  to-day  means  quite  a  dif- 
ferent thing  from  what  it  did  in  the  fourteenth  and 
fifteenth  centuries,  and  in  this  country  from  what 
it  does  in  Russia  or  India  or  South  America.  The 
first  stage  has  passed,  namely,  that  of  industrial 
discipline.  The  factory  system  brought  that.  It 
brought  the  whip  of  economic  coercion.  It  brought 
the  pressure  of  activity  or  work  as  a  necessary  con- 
dition to  getting  a  living.  It  practically  removed 
from  the  life  of  the  laborers  that  paternal  hand  which 
had  always  been  the  last  resource,  first  through  the 
church  in  its  charity,  and  then  through  the  state 
in  its  provisions  for  pauperism.  It  said,  noiselessly 
but  most  effectively:  You  must  rest  on  your  own 
foundation;  you  must  be  the  source  of  your  own 
supply;  you  must  earn  your  living  or  not  live.  This 
was  the  discipline;  it  transferred  industry  from  the 
home  to  the  factory;  it  took  the  hand  laborer  out 
of  his  cottage  with  his  hand  loom  and  spinning  wheel 
and  put  him  into  the  factory  and  made  him  a  part 
of  the  great  machines,  almost  as  in  a  tread  mill;  he 
had  to  keep  time  or  get  hurt.  This  brought,  first 
the  orderly  industrial  habit;  then  it  brought  some- 
thing else — repression.  As  in  so  many  instances 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  ^7 

in  history,  what  was  at  first  a  necessity  ultimately 
became  oppression.  The  free  towns,  in  the  Middle 
Ages,  were  the  very  essence  of  freedom,  and  without 
them  modern  civilization  probably  could  not  have 
come,  certainly  would  not  have  come  the  way  it 
did  and  when  it  did;  but  the  usefulness  and  special 
function,  as  it  were,  of  the  free  towns  disappeared 
when  they  had  produced  a  certain  degree  of  progress. 
After  that,  they  became  an  oppression.  They  were 
at  first  the  protectors  of  freedom  and  of  the  right  to 
work  and  to  enjoy  the  results  of  production,  but  they 
finally  became  a  paternal,  repressive  dictator  of 
what  should  and  should  not  be  done.  The  very 
elements  that  were  at  first  protective  became  repres- 
sive paternalism,  not  because  the  power  had  changed, 
but  because  the  progress  of  the  people  had  gone  be- 
yond the  stage  of  needing  the  same  functions  per- 
formed, and  the  towns  continued  to  do  what  they 
had  at  first  done  after  that  became  unnecessary. 

It  is  very  much  like  the  paternal  authority  with 
the  child.  That  is  very  important  at  a  certain  stage, 
but  then  there  conies  a  stage  when  it  ceases  to  be 
either  important  or  beneficial.  Paternal  authority 
and  chastisement  may  be  wholesome  at  ten,  but  it 
may  be  very  unnecessary  at  twenty,  and  may  pro- 
duce the  directly  opposite  result.  That  is  because 
it  is  performing  a  function  that  has  ceased  to  be 
necessary. 

This  is  exactly  true  of  the  disciplinary  influences 
of  industry.  Under  the  factory  system,  that  which 
was  at  first  useful  came  to  be  repressive  coercion. 
The  employer  still  thought  of  the  laborer  simply 


1 68  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

as  a  workman,  only  as  so  much  of  a  machine,  and 
consequently  the  thing  to  do  was  to  make  him  work 
as  long  and  as  hard  and  for  as  little  as  possible. 
Hence  we  find  in  the  early  stages  that  fourteen  to 
sixteen  hours'  work  for  a  bare  existence  was  the 
rule,  with  children  working  until  they  fell  asleep; 
and  these  conditions  began  to  produce  numerous 
diseases,  individual  deformities,  and  finally  led  to 
many  social  vices.  This  was  because  the  methods 
of  the  Middle  Ages  had  outlived  their  usefulness. 

Oppoitunity,  in  the  twentieth  century,  calls  for 
an  entirely  different  policy;  something  quite  unlike 
what  was  opportunity  from  the  thirteenth  to  the 
eighteenth  centuries.  Then,  opportunity  was  to 
be  compelled  to  work;  now,  opportunity  requires 
leisure.  This  is  necessary  because  of  the  radical 
change  in  the  relation  of  the  workers  to  civilization, 
to  which  I  have  referred. 

Under  ordinary  conditions,  the  first  and  prime 
necessity  is  an  increased  market.  That  underlies 
all  else  in  modern  society.  It  is  the  result  of  the 
last  century's  progress.  If  anything  should  occur 
which  would  reduce  the  consumption  of  factory 
goods  by  fifty  per  cent.,  modern  progress  would 
be  turned  into  chaos,  progress  entirely  arrested, 
and  society  would  become  demoralized.  The  whole 
modern  structure  of  industrial  and  social  civilization 
finally  rests  upon  the  permanent,  daily,  habitual 
consumption  of  the  products  of  modern  industry — 
not  by  the  owners  of  stock  in  the  large  corporations, 
not  by  the  rich  who  can  ride  in  their  carriages,  not 
by  the  aristocracy  of  the  world,  not  by  those  who 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  169 

can  pay  high  prices  for  point  lace  and  hand-made 
products — but  it  rests  upon  the  normal  consump- 
tion of  these  who  work  for  a  living  and  consume 
the  machine-made  products  of  the  world. 

First  of  all,  then,  it  is  as  consumers  that  the  la- 
borers are  now  important  to  civilization.  They  are 
not  so  important  as  individual  workers,  they  are 
not  so  important  as  handi-craftsmen ;  invention, 
machinery  and  the  harnessing  of  the  forces  of  nature 
are  the  great  forces  which  are  bringing  the  increase 
in  the  world's  production  of  wealth.  The  pro- 
duction goes  on,  and  it  will  go  on;  the  ingenious 
devices  have  come  and  will  continue  to  come  just 
as  fast  as  the  opportunity  for  their  profitable  use 
is  assured.  It  is  a  mistake,  therefore,  to  rest  the 
considerations  of  the  welfare  of  society  upon  the 
capacity  of  the  laborer  as  an  inidvidual  producer. 
That  was  once  true,  but  it  is  no  longer  true,  at 
least  in  the  modern  industrial  countries.  The 
laborer's  importance  now  is,  I  repeat,  as  a  con- 
sumer. That  means  as  a  social  factor,  not  as  a 
physical  force.  This  fact  recognized,  the  impor- 
tant question  that  presents  itself  is  how  to  expand 
the  laborer  as  a  consumer. 

In  another  phase  of  the  matter,  it  has  now  be- 
come true  that  our  societary  institutions  depend 
on  the  laborer's  growth  as  a  citizen.  Civilization 
is  practically  in  the  laborer's  hands.  Whether 
we  shall  have  this  form  of  government  or  that; 
whether  we  shall  have  democracy  or  despotism; 
whether  we  shall  have  intelligent  and  honest  gov- 
ernment or  corruption  and  jobbery;  whether  we 


170 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


shall  have  political  cleanliness  or  merely  party 
demagogy  as  the  moving  force  in  our  public  policy, 
depends  upon  the  intelligence  and  social  character 
of  the  masses.  It  does  not  depend  any  longer  upon 
the  opinions  of  the  well-to-do.  It  depends  upon 
convincing  the  masses  of  the  wisdom  of  this  or  that 
policy.  Now,  their  capacity  for  intelligent  con- 
ceptions and  convictions,  the  understanding  of  the 
influence  of  this  or  that  public  policy,  depends  upon 
social  development.  It  depends  upon  the  growth 
of  character,  the  capacity  for  forming  and  having 
intelligent  opinions  upon  public  affairs. 

This  requires,  just  as  any  other  development  re- 
quires, opportunity;  but  the  opportunity  now  must 
be  of  an  entirely  different  character  from  what  was 
necessary  in  the  Middle  Ages  or  from  that  which  is 
necessary  now  in  Asia,  Africa,  Russia  or  South 
America.  In  this  country  the  opportunity  for 
growth  in  these  two  lines,  as  consumers  and  citizens, 
requires  first  of  all  release  from  the  excessive  pres- 
sure upon  the  nervous  and  physical  energies  that 
the  factory  system  has  developed.  Opportunity 
now  means  leisure,  more  time  for  touch  with  the 
educational,  socializing  and  civilizing  elements  in 
society. 

There  is  only  one  way  at  present  to  increase  the 
consumption  of  the  laborer.  I  can  imagine  some- 
body saying:  Increase  his  wages.  Oh,  no!  That 
is  not  the  way.  If  wages  were  suddenly  increased 
to  a  very  large  extent  it  might  easily  result  in  de- 
moralization instead  of  development.  There  is 
practically  no  large  group  of  workers  in  the  world 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


171 


who  could  stand  a  doubling  of  their  wages.  In- 
dividuals could,  but  certainly  not  any  general  group. 
Wages  are  only  essential  to  the  individual  and  social 
development  of  a  people  when  they  represent  the 
normal  consumption,  the  daily  wholesome  expenses. 
Wealth  civilizes  only  to  the  extent  that  it  is  habit- 
ually consumed.  Wealth  that  is  suddenly  thrust 
upon  people  easily  demoralizes. 

Increased  wages  help  only  when  they  come  as  the 
result  of  a  social  pressure  arising  from  the  need  of 
more  things,  from  the  growth  of  new  wants,  of 
new  desires.  Just  as  fast  as  people  learn  to  need 
new  things,  it  matters  not  what  they  are,  whether 
slippers  or  carpets,  whether  books  or  art  products 
or  whatsoever,  just  as  fast  as  the  new  things  come 
to  be  a  necessity,  to  go  without  which  creates  an- 
noyance and  friction  sufficient  to  make  them  put 
forth  new  efforts,  even  to  undergo  sacrifice  to  secure 
them,  just  so  soon  will  the  having  and  consuming 
of  these  things  contribute  to  character  develop- 
ment. It  is,  therefore,  in  the  development  of  the 
social  life,  increase  in  the  variety  of  demands,  that 
the  progress  from  now  on  must  get  its  general  stim- 
ulation, and  this,  too,  among  the  working  classes. 
It  is  no  longer  a  question  of  increasing  the  con- 
sumption by  the  small  "upper"  classes;  that  has 
ceased  to  be  an  important  contribution  to  the  in- 
dustrial growth  of  the  community.  It  is  too  small. 
It  is  the  consumption  by  the  masses  that  must  grow 
if  society  is  to  progress.  This  can  come  only  by  the 
opportunity  to  increase  and  stimulate  new  wants 
and  habits. 


172  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

Opportunity  here  necessarily  means  more  time, 
closer  touch  with  broadening  influences,  with  all 
that  is  going  on  in  society.  The  laborers  must  see 
more;  they  must  come  in  contact  with  more;  they 
must  have  an  increasing  variety,  or  there  can  never 
be  very  much  growth  in  their  social  wants  and  habits. 
On  the  political  side  this  is  also  necessary  for  the 
development  of  citizenship.  Wholesome  leisure  is 
the  essence  of  opportunity  for  growth  and  intelli- 
gence. We  recognize  it  in  our  own  individual  ex- 
perience. We  recognize  it  in  our  children.  We 
are  careful  that  they  shall  not  associate  with  the 
wrong  people,  that  they  shall  not  live  in  the  wrong 
quarter  of  the  city,  that  they  shall  not  go  to  the 
wrong  school,  that  they  shall  not  have  the  wrong 
kind  of  companions.  Why  do  we  guard  all  this? 
Because  we  know  that  it  is  largely  by  the  influences 
of  the  child's  environments  that  its  character  is 
formed  and  that  its  individuality  will  eventually 
take  shape.  What  is  true  of  our  own  children  is 
true  of  socie'ty. 

Everybody  knows  that  intelligent  understanding 
of  political,  social  and  economic  conditions  and 
measures  is  a  matter  of  long  familiarity  and  study. 
It  is  the  result  of  an  understanding  touching  all 
the  various  sides  of  these  subjects.  That  is  why 
we  spend  millions  on  universities  and  more  millions 
for  common  schools,  and  why  we  attach  so  much 
importance  to  the  fact  that  every  citizen  should 
know  something  of  the  history  of  his  country,  its 
institutions  and  the  principles  upon  which  they  are 
based.  But  the  great  masses  cannot  go  to  college; 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  173 

they  can  go  to  school  only  a  little  while;  they  must 
get  their  education  for  citizenship  in  the  daily  life, 
alongside  of  and  contemporaneously  with  earning 
their  living.  It  must  be  a  part  of  their  daily  exist- 
ence, and  for  this  there  must  be  opportunity,  and 
opportunity  here  means  time.  It  means  some  re- 
lease from  the  pressure  of  getting  a  living. 

Moreover,  it  is  necessary  for  physical  reasons.  So 
long  as  the  laborer  works  to  the  point  of  being  ex- 
hausted, so  far  is  the  possibility  of  this  educational 
opportunity  destroyed.  To  work  in  the  factory 
until  exhausted  disqualifies  a  laborer  for  reading  a 
book,  for  instance,  and  for  enjoying  the  social  in- 
fluences of  family  and  friends.  It  fits  him  for  the 
saloon,  it  fits  him  for  the  need  of  stimulants;  he 
comes  to  the  point  where  he  wants  the  quickest 
relief,  and  unfortunately,  that  is  too  frequently 
the  saloon.  But  to  quit  work  before  exhaustion  sets 
in,  before  the  really  tired  feeling  has  taken  possession, 
is  to  relieve  him  with  some  vitality,  some  ambition 
to  touch  the  other  side  of  life,  to  be  like  others. 
Under  all  these  lines,  economic,  educational  and 
physical,  opportunity  means  more  leisure,  and  more 
leisure  means  a  shortening  of  the  working  day. 

The  factory  system  makes  this  more  and  more 
necessary  in  proportion  as  it  is  perfected  in  its  mechan- 
ism. It  becomes  all  the  time  more  and  more  ex- 
acting. The  greater  the  perfection  of  the  ma- 
chinery or  the  method,  the  more  attention  is  re- 
quired. The  really  effective  side  of  the  productive 
enterprise  of  society,  as  I  have  said,  is  no  longer  the 
muscle  of  the  man  but  the  perfection  of  the  ma- 


174 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


chinery,  and  it  becomes  therefore  more  and  more 
important  that  the  worker  should  be  an  intelligent 
and  competent  man,  rather  than  a  physical  drudge. 
Throughout  the  factory  system  this  is  true.  It  is 
becoming  more  and  more  obvious  to  all  who  have 
studied  this  question. 

We  are  apt  sometimes  to  complain  of  the  employer 
for  the  exacting  demands  he  makes  on  his  men. 
But  the  intention  of  the  employer  is  to  make  the 
most  of  his  machinery;  not  to  do  that  is  to  fail  as 
a  captain  of  industry.  And  whatever  is  necessary 
to  make  the  most  of  the  machinery  is  important  to 
the  successful  conduct  of  the  industry.  If  that 
makes  the  laborers  tired,  then,  so  far  as  the  em- 
ployer is  concerned,  they  must  be  tired;  if  it  calls 
for  too  much  strenuous  attention,  too  much  nerve 
exhaustion,  then  the  nerve  exhaustion  must  come 
or  the  machinery  is  a  failure.  The  remedy  for  this 
cannot  be  found  in  slackening  up  on  the  demands 
for  economic  output  and  effectiveness  in  the  ma- 
chinery. Simply  to  slacken  on  that  side  is  to  defeat 
the  importance  and  the  advantage  to  society  of  the 
improved  method.  The  remedy  for  that  must 
come  on  the  other  side — shortening  the  day,  not 
slackening  the  effort.  The  tension  may  not  be 
lessened,  but  the  hours  may  be  reduced.  The 
exhaustion  on  the  laborer  must  be  avoided,  but 
it  cannot  be  avoided  by  reducing  production;  it 
must  come  through  cutting  off  a  piece  of  the  time 
required.  This  has  become  now  almost  a  necessity. 
Not  that  everybody  recognizes  it;  Dn  the  contrary, 
it  is  surprising  how  slowly  the  great  employing 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  175 

classes  of  the  world  come  to  recognize  this.  They 
will  all  recognize  it  with  reference  to  themselves 
individually;  they  find  that  modern  business  is 
more  exacting  than  ever,  and  they  find  that  to 
slacken  is  to  fail.  Consequently  they  find  that  long 
vacations  are  necessary  to  avoid  physical  exhaustion. 
But  long  vacations  are  impossible  for  laborers;  it 
would  mean  delaying  business;  and,  since  the 
laborers  cannot  be  relieved  by  long  vacations,  they 
must  have  relief  by  lessening  the  duration  of  the 
pressure  every  day. 

This  has  become  as  obvious  as  it  is  necessary, 
but,  curiously,  it  has  not  been  finally  accepted  by 
the  majority  of  employers.  That  is  because,  as 
employers,  as  capitalists,  they  feel  themselves  under 
the  responsibility  to  succeed,  almost  at  any  cost. 
But  they  all  see  it  for  others.  For  instance,  the 
employers  of  the  North  can  see  quite  readily  that 
the  hours  of  labor  should  be  reduced  in  the  South; 
but  the  southern  employers  cannot  see  it.  English 
employers  could  not  see  it  at  all  for  forty  years, 
and  in  fact  they  did  not  see  it  until  after  it  was 
done  against  their  will;  but  after  it  had  been  done, 
after  the  hours  of  labor  had  been  reduced,  after 
child  labor  below  ten  years  of  age  had  been  pro- 
hibited, and  after  more  than  half-time  work  had 
been  prohibited  under  fourteen  years  of  age,  they 
saw  it  and  wondered  why  America  did  not  adopt  it. 
They  exclaimed,  with  much  philanthropy  and  sur- 
prise, that  America  did  not  shorten  the  hours  of 
labor.  They  had  seen  in  their  own  case  that,  while 
they  thought  they  were  going  to  be  ruined,  they 


176  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

had  not  been;  that  reducing  the  hours  of  labor  had 
not  lessened  profits.  It  had  not  created  drunken- 
ness among  the  laborers,  but  on  the  contrary  had 
diminished  disease,  lessened  crime,  increased  so- 
briety, and  had  greatly  added  to  the  intelligence, 
honesty  and  ambitions  of  the  laboring  classes.  And 
production  did  not  diminish;  on  the  contrary,  the 
production  per  laborer,  in  every  line  of  industry 
where  this  had  occurred,  increased.  They  saw 
all  this,  to  which  they  were  very  blind  at  the  be- 
ginning, but  experience  made  it  clear  that  it  was 
not  detrimental,  and  they  were  surprised  that  New 
England  manufacturers  were  so  thoughtless  of  the 
welfare  of  their  employees  and  so  blind  to  the  economic 
consequences  of  so  humane  and  progressive  a  policy. 

New  England,  in  its  turn,  after  it  had  adopted 
some  shortening  of  the  hours  against  its  will,  ul- 
timately went  through  the  same  process.  It  re- 
sisted all  the  efforts  to  reduce  the  hours  of  labor, 
to  restrict  the  age  at  which  children  should  work  in 
the  factories,  to  furnish  compulsory  education  for 
factory  children,  to  protect  dangerous  machinery 
and  improve  the  sanitary  conditions  of  the  factory, 
and  provide  fire  escapes  and  other  obviously  humane 
requirements.  It  resisted  all  those,  but  after  they 
came,  through  the  sheer  force  of  civilization,  through 
the  sheer  force  of  the  growing  broader  conceptions 
of  the  times  as  to  the  needs  and  opportunities  of 
the  masses,  they  were  surprised,  quite  surprised, 
that  the  South  should  be  still  so  blind. 

The  reason  none  of  them  saw  it  until  after  it  was 
accomplished  is  that  they  looked  at  it  as  employers, 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  177 

as  capitalists,  as  wealth  producers.  They  did  not 
look  at  it  from  the  point  of  view  of  society,  not  even 
from  the  point  of  view  of  the  future  market.  They 
thought  a  bird  in  the  hand  to-day  better  than  the 
possibility  of  a  future  development  to-morrow. 
That  may  continue  to  be  the  view  of  the  short- 
sighted, but  to  the  extent  to  which  that  view  pre- 
vails are  the  influences  which  permit  progress  checked 
and  stultified.  Of  course,  in  dealing  with  this,  it 
must  be  admitted  that  there  is  a  cautionary  aspect 
that  must  be  considered.  Whatever  is  done  to 
stimulate  progress,  in  whatever  country  or  under 
whatever  conditions,  must  be  done  consistently  with 
the  economic  interests  of  society,  and  the  economic 
interests  of  society  always  involve  the  industrial 
interests  of  each  and  all  producing  factors.  There- 
fore, while  the  shortening  of  the  working  day  is 
absolutely  indispensable  to  the  continuation  of 
modern  industrial  progress  and  political  superiority 
and  freedom,  it  must  come  in  such  a  way  as  not  to 
interfere  materially  with  the  economic  possibilities 
of  the  employers.  In  other  words,  it  must  come 
gradually,  and  as  far  as  possible,  uniformly. 

There  has  been  enough  experience  already  in  this 
line  to  convince  a  very  considerable  portion  of  em- 
ployers that  it  would  be  all  right  to  reduce  the  hours 
of  labor  if  it  could  be  done  for  everybody  at  the 
same  time.  Of  course,  this  is  very  often  presented 
as  an  insurmountable  obstacle  and  therefore  as  a 
reason  for  not  doing  it,  rather  than  as  a  reason  for 
doing  it.  It  is  said  by  some  that  if  we  shorten  the 
working  day  more  than  they  do  in  England  or  Ger- 


178  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

many  or  France  and  other  foreign  countries,  we 
are  put  at  a  disadvantage.  To  begin  with,  we 
ought  to  meet  that  frankly  and  squarely  by  ruling 
it  out  of  court.  Competition  with  other  nations 
has  no  standing  and  no  claim  to  consideration  on 
this  subject.  It  is  competition  only  with  our  own 
people  in  this  country  that  is  to  be  considered.  The 
public  policy  of  America  can  relate  only  to  the  con- 
ditions of  America.  We  say  to  manufacturers, 
and  we  say  it  frankly,  against  the  competition  of 
all  foreign  countries  we  protect  you.  If  your  wages 
are  too  great,  or  your  hours  of  labor  too  short,  or 
if  our  civilization  is  too  high  to  compete  with  the 
cheap  labor  of  the  lower  civilizations,  we  will  pro- 
tect you.  Our  public  policy  says  that  they  shall 
not  undersell  you  in  this  country  for  any  such  a 
reason,  and  therefore  foreign  competition  is  en- 
titled to  no  serious  consideration  in  discussing  this 
question. 

But  the  shortening  of  the  working  day  should  be 
brought  about,  and  indeed  must  be  brought  about, 
by  means  that  are  consistent  with  the  economic 
success  of  domestic  industry.  For  that  reason  it 
should  be  general.  Eight  hours,  for  instance,  in 
the  cotton  mills  of  one  State  and  twelve  hours  in 
the  cotton  mills  of  another  is  injurious  in  a  double 
way.  It  is  injurious  in  that  it  gives  to  the  capitalists 
of  the  one  State  an  unfair  advantage  over  those  in 
another  State.  In  other  words,  it  gives  the  ad- 
vantage of  long-hour  labor  coupled  with  modern 
machinery.  That  means  that  it  gives  the  lower 
civilization,  the  more  backward  social  conditions, 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  179 

an  advantage  over  the  more  advanced.  Against 
that  kind  of  conditions  in  other  countries  we  impose 
a  protective  tariff;  between  States  we  cannot  do 
that,  and  for  that  reason  we  should,  as  far  as  pos- 
sible, insist  that  the  ordinary  conditions  under 
which  business  is  conducted  should  be  approximately 
the  same.  In  the  hours  of  labor  and  the  employ- 
ment of  children  this  is  eminently  important,  and 
it  is  important  also  from  the  fact  that  giving  the 
long-hour  employers  an  advantage  tends  to  cut  off 
the  better  conditions  for  the  laborers.  So  long  as 
we  can  make  barbarism  pay,  we  will  continue  bar- 
barism. If  we  permit  conditions  to  exist  in  which 
sixteen  hours  a  day  have  an  advantage  over  ten  or 
eight  hours,  then  we  protect  the  sixteen  hour  a  day 
system,  whatever  the  result  on  civilization.  Any- 
thing that  pays  will  succeed,  and  if  we  can  make 
pauperism  and  barbarism  pay  we  can  prevent  civ- 
ilization from  coming.  So  far  as  the  general  con- 
ditions are  concerned,  we  should  always  see  that 
civilization  pays. 

In  our  protective  policy,  as  I  said,  we  do  that  for 
the  nation.  In  order  to  have  a  higher  social  life 
among  the  laboring  classes  in  this  country,  with 
higher  wages  and  other  superior  conditions,  the 
capitalist  is  protected  against  any  invasion  from 
lower  wage  and  less  civilized  countries.  Clearly, 
therefore,  if  the  policy  of  securing  a  shorter  working 
day  is  for  economic,  ethical  and  political  reasons 
indispensable  to  the  future  progress  of  the  country, 
we  must  be  wise  and  apply  the  principles  of  sound 
statesmanship  in  bringing  about  the  shorter  working 


i8o  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

day.  There  are  several  methods;  one  is  by  legis- 
lation, another  by  trade  union  pressure,  and  an- 
other by  co-operative  agreement  among  employers 
themselves.  The  latter  is  by  far  the  better.  If 
the  employers  of  this  country  would  recognize  the 
on-coming  of  this  question — and  they  must  be  blind 
not  to  see  it — and  would  put  themselves  sufficiently 
in  line  with  it  to  apply  the  same  kind  of  organizing 
and  economic  force  to  it  that  they  do  to  developing 
corporations  and  the  introduction  of  new  methods, 
they  will  soon  find  a  way  to  agree  upon  a  system  of 
gradually  and  generally  reducing  the  working 
day. 

For  instance,  suppose  all  the  iron  industries  of  the 
country  should  act  together  and  agree  that  they 
would  reduce  the  working  hours  thirty  minutes  a 
year,  fifteen  minutes  each  six  months,  until  the 
working  day  in  all  departments  should  reach  eight 
hours.  This  would  be  of  no  disadvantage  to  any- 
body; all  who  were  competitors  with  each  other 
would  be  undergoing  the  same  general  experience. 
What  affects  all  alike  could  not  be  a  disadvantage 
to  any.  If  some  are  working  eight  hours  already, 
they  would  remain  untouched.  If  there  are  some 
working  nine  hours,  they  would  remain  untouched 
at  first.  All  who  are  working  above  ten  hours  would 
be  reduced  to  ten,  say  on  the  first  of  January,  and 
all  after  that  who  are  working  ten  would  be  reduced 
fifteen  minutes  on  the  first  of  July  and  fifteen 
minutes  more  on  the  first  of  the  following  January, 
and  so  throughout  the  entire  industry,  taking  off 
fifteen  minutes  from  those  that  were  above  the 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  181 

minimum  until  the  general  level  of  eight  hours  was 
reached. 

In  some  cases  that  might  increase  the  cost  of 
production;  that  is,  if  the  output  did  not  increase. 
Experience  has  shown  that  in  the  majority  of  cases 
this  takes  place.  The  increased  output,  however, 
cannot  come  from  the  increased  work  of  the  laborer; 
it  must  come  from  the  increased  perfection  of  the 
machinery.  But  if  the  shorter  hours  did  increase 
the  cost  of  the  finished  product,  it  would  affect  prices 
but  slightly  and  temporarily.  We  have  had  an 
illustration  of  this  during  the  last  few  years.  The 
industrial  boom  that  we  have  experienced  did  in- 
crease the  cost  of  production  in  many  lines;  raw 
materials  rose  and  finished  products  rose,  and  hence 
the  cost  of  living  rose,  but  the  outcome  of  it  all  has 
been  that  wages  have  risen  also,  and  we  have  prac- 
tically reached  the  point  where,  instead  of  anybody 
being  the  poorer,  everybody  is  the  richer.  Profits 
were  never  so  great,  wages  were  never  so  good,  em- 
ployment was  never  so  plentiful,  and  conditions 
were  never  so  satisfactory  all  round  as  they  are 
to-day.  There  has  been  a  great  deal  of  rise  of  prices 
in  this  readjustment;  but  the  secondary  fact  in 
that  is  the  improved  methods  and  organization, 
which  ultimately  cheapen  materially  the  cost  of 
production  and  consequently  cheapen  the  product. 
That  is  now  going  on.  Prices  are  beginning  to  de- 
cline; iron  and  steel  and  all  the  various  products 
are  tending  downwards,  not  because  profits  are  less, 
not  because  business  is  less,  not  because  the  demand 
is  falling  off,  but  because  the  improved  appliances 


!82  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

and  more  economic  adjustments  have  come  along, 
and  the  working  of  economic  forces  is  producing 
the  usual  and  permanent  results  of  greater 
economy. 

Therefore,  the  outcome  is  no  disadvantage.  It  is 
a  net  gain  ultimately  to  the  welfare  and  social  im- 
provement of  the  community.  This  same  move- 
ment can  take  place  in  every  other  branch  of  in- 
dustry, just  the  same  as  in  the  iron  and  steel  in- 
dustries, and  here  we  have  illustrated  the  advantage 
in  the  large  corporations.  The  fact  that  the  United 
States  Steel  Corporation  controls  sixty  per  cent,  of 
the  output  of  the  iron  and  steel  products  makes 
it  easier  for  the  iron  industry  to  get  together  and 
adopt  this  very  method  of  gradually  shaving  down 
the  working  day.  If  the  iron  industry  were  in  the 
hands  of  three  or  four  times  as  many  capitalists 
as  it  is  to-day,  it  would  be  more  difficult  to  organize 
such  a  policy,  but  the  fact  that  it  has  come  into  the 
hands  of  a  few  makes  it  easier  for  the  capitalists  to 
act  and  generally  adopt  such  a  policy.  The  cotton 
industry,  the  furniture  industry  and  all  other  in- 
dustries could  be,  if  the  employing  classes  really 
desired  it,  treated  in  the  same  way,  and  with  no 
great  difficulty. 

This  is  even  in  preference  to  legislation  for  bringing 
about  the  shortening  of  the  working  day.  Many 
of  the  efforts  to  enforce  special  reductions  are  a  mis- 
take, and  the  laborers  sometimes  make  mistakes 
in  this  direction.  For  instance,  there  is  at  this  mo- 
ment a  bill  before  Congress  asking  that  the  present 
eight  hour  law,  which  applies  to  Government  em- 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE 


ployees  exclusively,  shall  be  extended  to  all  contract 
work  which  is  being  done  for  the  Government.  That 
is  to  say,  it  is  proposed  that  Congress  shall  pass  a  law 
providing  that  any  concern  which  supplies  the 
Government  with  any  product  must  adopt  the  eight 
hour  day  for  the  laborers  working  on  the  products 
for  the  Government.  This,  it  will  be  observed, 
carries  the  condition  with  the  contract,  that  to 
supply  armor  plate  or  guns  or  ammunition  or  paper 
or  machinery  or  ships,  or  whatsoever,  the  concern 
which  bids  for  the  Government  work  must  agree 
to  employ  the  laborers  on  that  work  only  eight 
hours  a  day.  That  is  injecting  the  reduction  of  the 
working  day  in  spots,  not  even  in  industries,  but 
in  spots  in  industries,  and  is  nearly  the  opposite 
of  the  true  policy.  If  this  bill  should  become  a 
law,  it  would  preclude  a  very  large  number  of  con- 
cerns from  the  possibility  of  even  competing  for 
Government  work;  it  would  make  it  so,  for  instance, 
that  if  a  large  concern  wanted  to  bid  for  a  contract 
to  furnish  armor  plates,  or  clothes  for  soldiers,  it 
must  practically  adopt  the  eight  hour  system  for 
everything;  the  work  for  the  Government  may  be 
only  a  small  portion  of  its  general  output,  and  in 
that  case  that  firm  is  compelled  to  put  itself  to  a 
disadvantage  with  other  competitors  on  its  regular 
work  in  the  open  market  in  order  to  be  able  to  bid 
for  the  Government  job.  This,  in  many  cases, 
would  make  it  impossible  or  not  worth  while  to  bid 
for  government  work  at  all.  The  result  would 
naturally  be  that  there  would  be  very  little  com- 
petition to  supply  the  Government,  which  would 


1 84  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

probably  compel  the  Government  to  pay  exorbi- 
tant prices  because  of  the  reduction  of  competition, 
or  get  its  work  done  abroad,  or  else  become  its  own 
producer.  The  latter  would  probably  be  the  ten- 
dency, thus  making  the  government  a  manufacturer 
of  armor  plate,  a  builder  of  ships,  and  in  fact  a 
general  manufacturer  for  all  its  needs.  This  is 
clearly  not  in  the  direction  of  the  true  social  move- 
ment for  the  general  shortening  of  the  working  day. 
It  is  asking  for  it  under  conditions  that  produce  the 
greatest  friction  for  the  least  results. 

I  confess  considerable  surprise  and  regret  in  noting 
that  the  Federation  of  Labor  has  become  sponsor 
for  this  particular  measure.  Under  the  leadership 
of  Mr.  Gompers  the  Federation  has  been  the  most 
conservative  and  therefore  the  most  effective  ele- 
ment in  the  labor  movement  in  this  country.  It 
has  seemed  always  to  move  along  the  line  of  rational 
advancement.  It  has  avoided  the  fireworks  in- 
fluence of  the  socialists,  it  has  given  no  considera- 
tion to  the  vagaries  of  the  single  tax,  but  has  in- 
sisted upon  concentration  of  the  efforts  of  the  feder- 
ation to  shorten  the  working  day  and  increase  the 
wages  and  improve  the  factory  conditions  of  the 
workers.  Never  before  has  it  lent  itself  to  any 
proposition  that  was  not  broad-gauged  and  along 
the  lines  of  sound  economic  policy.  In  insisting 
upon  this  bill,  grafting,  as  it  were,  the  eight  hour 
condition  upon  each  individual  contract,  the  Feder- 
ation has  moved  into  the  field  of  ineffective  and 
really  unsound  policy.  If  it  is  insisted  upon,  it  is 
quite  likely  to  injure  rather  than  help  the  movement. 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  185 

The  shortening  of  the  working  day  is  not  a  move- 
ment which  can  have  its  best  effect  unless  it  moves 
on  the  lines  of  broad-gauged  policy,  which  shall 
eventually  include  all  the  workers  of  the  country.  It 
must  become  a  national  policy,  and  not  a  mere 
attribute  to  government  contracts.  That  would 
tend  to  create  acrimony  among  employers  who 
are  otherwise  favorable  to  the  short-hour  movement, 
because  it  puts  them  to  a  personal  disadvantage. 
That  should  not  be.  The  policy  should  always 
be  to  advocate  the  eight  hour  day  or  the  shorten- 
ing of  the  working  day  on  lines  and  under  conditions 
which  shall  put  no  employers  to  a  disadvantage. 
Instead  of  insisting  upon  this  contract  stipulation 
which  gives  eight  hours  only  in  small  and  irritating 
spots,  the  demand  should  be  presented  as  a  part 
of  the  trade  union  policy,  that  the  hours  of  labor 
be  generally  reduced  and  gradually,  on  some  sliding 
scale;  and  the  laborers,  on  their  part,  instead  of 
trying  to  restrict  the  output,  circumvent  the  use  of 
machinery  or  other  conditions  of  the  workshop, 
should  take  the  attitude  that  the  employers  shall 
have  a  free  hand  to  use  their  machinery  to  the  best 
advantage,  and  to  control  the  methods  of  output, 
but  shall  co-operate  in  giving  the  laborers  pro- 
tection from  excessive  pressure,  and  a  share  in  the 
advantages  of  progress  by  a  gradual  shortening  of 
the  working  day.  In  other  words,  the  laborers 
should  demand  relief,  not  by  interfering  with  the 
production,  but  through  increase  of  leisure  time 
in  every  working  day  and  every  working  week  in 
the  year.  It  is  on  the  side  of  the  relief  from 


!86  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

work,  and  not  the  meddling  with  the  methods 
of  the  work,  that  the  laborers'  improvement  must 
come. 

To  have  it  come  effectively,  the  short-hour  system 
must  come  with  the  consent  of  all,  as  a  recognized 
element  of  the  social  movement  of  the  time.  It  is 
as  much  to  the  interest  of  laborers  as  it  is  of  the 
capitalists  and  the  community  that  all  the  forces, 
political,  social  and  economic,  should  be  united,  not 
in  forcing  it  for  the  advantage  of  a  few,  but  in  bring- 
ing it  about  by  means  and  methods  which  would 
make  it  an  advantage  to  all.  That  could  be  ac- 
complished by  a  gradual,  uniform  reduction,  by 
the  co-operation  of  the  laborers  and  employers  by 
industries.  That  would  be  much  more  effective 
than  by  States.  To  adopt  eight  hours  in  one  State, 
as  against  twelve  hours  in  another,  is  putting  cer- 
tain industries  to  a  disadvantage;  but  if  it  were 
introduced  by  industries  throughout  the  country 
there  would  be  no  economic  disadvantage,  because 
every  such  agreement  would  affect  all  the  operators 
of  any  industrial  group  alike,  and  whenever  all  are 
affected  alike  there  will  be  the  minimum  of  friction 
and  resistance.  Success  in  any  one  line,  in  such  an 
experiment — in  the  iron  and  steel  industries,  for 
instance — would  soon  demonstrate  the  feasibility 
of  this  method,  so  that  all  the  forces  of  public  opinion 
and  common  sense,  as  well  as  of  economic  interest, 
would  combine  in  extending  it  to  the  other  indus- 
tries of  the  country.  In  this  way,  or  along  this  line, 
the  shortening  of  the  working  day  to  the  point  of 
a  national  eight  hour  day  is  both  possible  and  feas- 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  187 

ible   and   altogether   desirable,    alike   for   industrial, 
ethical  and  political  reasons. 

THE  CHAIRMAN  :  Our  next  paper  will  be  presented 
by  Mr.  A.  F.Weber,  Chief  Statistician  in  the  De- 
partment of  Labor  of  New  York. 

MR.  MOSELY:  Mr.  Chairman,  may  I  be  permitted 
to  carry  the  discussion  back  before  the  adjournment 
for  one  question  that  I  asked  for  information? 

THE  CHAIRMAN  :   Certainly. 

MR.  MOSELY:  It  refers  to  that  of  apprentices. 
I  ask  only  for  information  because  probably  I  mis- 
understood what  had  been  said.  I  quite  see  to-day 
with  the  systematization  of  work,  the  way  it  is 
subdivided,  that  there  is  no  longer  a  necessity  to 
take  in  apprentices  in  the  way  in  which  it  was  for- 
merly done.  There  is  no  room  for  them.  And 
that  as  a  consequence  the  unions  say  that  they  must 
protect  the  boy  from  getting  into  work,  because 
ultimately  he  would  have  found  himself  in  a  position 
of  having  tried  to  learn  nothing.  The  machinery 
does  all  that  now.  I  think  that  is  a  very  wrong 
position  to  take  and  I  quite  agree  that  the  question 
of  apprentices  should  be  one  of  mutual  understand- 
ing between  both  employer  and  employee.  But  as 
I  understand — I  forget  who  the  speaker  was- — he 
said  that  the  unions  arrogated  to  themselves  the 
sole  right  to  say  how  many  apprentices  should  be 
taken.  I  do  not  know  whether  I  misunderstood 
that,  but  if  that  is  the  position  that  the  unions  adopt, 
I  don't  think  it  is  sound,  I  don't  think  it  is  one  that 
is  permissible.  I  should  be  glad  if  I  could  be  put 


1 88  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

right  upon  that  point.     Perhaps  Mr.   Gompers  can 
give  me  that  information. 

MR.  GOMPERS:  Let  the  guilty  party  respond  for 
himself.  I  have  enough  to  answer  for  in  my  own 
conduct. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Who  is  the  guilty  party,  Mr. 
O'Connell? 

MR.  O'CONNELL:  I  guess  probably  I'm  the  guilty 
party.  I  desire  to  say  that  in  the  years  gone  by, 
before  the  evolution  that  has  taken  place  in  the 
industry  of  our  country,  when  we  went  to  an  em- 
ployer with  a  view  to  regulating  the  employment 
of  apprentices, we  were  always  told:  "We  are  running 
this  business;  we  will  employ  as  many  boys  as  we 
please,  and  we  don't  desire  to  consult  you  about  the 
matter."  That  had  gone  on  so  many  years  that  we 
decided  we  had  to  say  something  about  it  and  we 
made  a  definite  rule.  We  have  never  had  any  idea 
however,  of  not  being  willing  to  meet  the  employer 
at  the  round  table  with  the  view  of  discussing  mat- 
ters. We  have  never  denied  the  right  to  take  up 
with  him  for  discussion  the  matter  of  the  number 
of  apprentices  that  should  be  employed.  But  the 
experience  of  years  gone  by,  when  we  were  denied 
the  right  of  saying  anything  about  that,  necessi- 
tated the  rule  of  saying  how  many  apprentices 
should  be  employed,  which  has  resulted  in  bringing 
about  a  regulation  of  the  number  in  each  trade, 
sometimes  by  conference  and  sometimes  by  reason 
of  the  refusal  of  the  employers  to  meet  the  employees 
and  discuss  the  matter. 

MR,   MOSELY:     Then  do  I  understand  you  hold 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  189 

that  the  unions  now  absolutely  dictate  the  number 
of  apprentices  that  shall  be  employed  ? 

MR.  O'CONNELL:  In  a  number  of  trades  the  organ- 
izations say  how  many  apprentices  shall  be  employed. 

MR.  MOSELY:  And  the  employers  have  no  say 
whatever  ? 

MR.  O'CONNELL:  That  is  the  result  of  agreement 
generally. 

MR.  MOSELY:   With  the  employer? 

MR.  O'CONNELL:  With  the  employer. 

MR.  MOSELY:  That  they  have  nothing  to  say? 

MR.  O'CONNELL:  That  they  have  nothing  to  say, 
but  they  agree  to  employ  so  many  apprentices  to 
so  many  journeymen.  For  instance,  in  the  ma- 
chinists' trade  we  have  about  2,500  agreements  in 
the  United  States  in  which  the  employer  agrees 
that  one  apprentice  boy  to  25  journeymen  shall 
be  the  ratio. 

MR.  MOSELY:  That  is  a  matter  of  agreement. 
Not  a  matter  of  dictation.  I  only  asked  for  infor- 
mation. 

MR.  A.  F.  WEBER,  PH.  D.  (Chief  Statistician, 
New  York  State  Department  of  Labor) :  The  Secre- 
tary of  the  Federation  has  asked  me  to  present  the 
essential  facts  about  the  duration  of  the  work-day 
in  modern  industry.  For  the  purpose  of  discussion 
here  to-day,  it  will  be  sufficient  to  describe  the  situ- 
ation in  rather  broad  lines,  and  I  shall  therefore 
summarize  as  briefly  as  may  be  some  of  the  facts 
brought  out  in  an  investigation  for  the  New  York 
Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics  in  1900. 


I9o  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

The  most  striking  fact  about  this  question  of 
hours  of  labor  seems  to  me  its  universality.  In 
virtually  every  country  dominated  by  Western 
civilization  the  daily  work-time  in  mechanical  in- 
dustries is  being  cut  down  by  successive  movements 
that  appear  to  be  as  inevitable  as  the  tide,  and  that 
have  the  appearance  of  steps  in  the  path  of  human 
progress.  Even  the  most  backward  countries  of 
Europe  feel  its  influence — Italy,  Hungary,  Russia; 
and  Spain  not  three  months  since  announced  that 
workmen  in  the  government  employ  should  work 
only  eight  hours  a  day. 

In  the  second  place,  the  countries  of  Europe — 
continental  Europe  at  least — have  in  recent  years 
made  more  rapid  progress  in  this  movement  than 
have  the  Anglo-Saxon  countries,  wherein  the  hours 
of  labor  have  been  shorter  than  those  prevalent 
elsewhere,  and  have  thereby  diminished  the  differ- 
ences between  various  countries.  Australia  has 
for  some  years  been  an  eight-hour  country,  and  all 
other  countries  have  been  marching  toward  the 
same  standard;  the  countries  with  the  longest  hours 
being  farthest  in  the  rear,  have  been  setting  the 
fastest  pace.  Thus  England,  where  most  of  the 
trades  had  established  the  nine-hour  day  more 
than  twenty  years  ago,  has  been  moving  rather 
slowly  toward  the  eight-hour  day;  but  in  Italy, 
where  a  quarter  of  a  century  ago  fourteen  and  six- 
teen hours  a  day  were  quite  common,  there  are  now 
only  two  factories  in  a  thousand  that  exceed  ten 
and  one-half  hours  as  the  regular  working  day 
schedule.  Italy  has  been  an  exception  in  thus 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  191 

shortening  the  working  time  without  resort  to  legis- 
lation, for  most  of  the  European  countries  have 
established  a  maximum  work-day  by  statute  which 
applies  not  only  to  women  and  minors  as  in  the 
United  States,  but  also  to  adult  males.  In  France 
the  compulsory  day  is  now  ten  and  one-half  hours, 
but  after  April  i,  1904,  will  be  the  same  as  in  most 
American  States — ten  hours;  in  the  other  conti- 
nental countries,  the  statutory  maximum  is  gen- 
erally eleven  hours  a  day,  but  numerous  industries 
have  shortened  this  period  by  private  agreement 
among  the  employers  and  the  employed.  Thus 
the  printers  in  several  countries  have  established 
the  nine-hour  day  (in  Germany,  the  eight-hour  day) ; 
while  in  Austria  the  hours  of  work  in  coal  mines  have 
been  very  recently  reduced  by  law  from  eleven  and 
twelve  to  nine  per  day,  as  a  result  of  a  strike.  In 
Denmark  the  shorter  hour  movement  has  been 
making  such  headway  that  the  average  duration  of 
the  working  day  is  now  probably  about  the  same 
as  in  the  United  States. 

In  the  United  States  itself  the  tendency  toward 
shorter  hours  has  been  slow  but  fairly  constant, 
and  when  working-time  has  once  been  reduced  in  an 
industry  it  has  almost  invariably  remained  at  the 
shorter  limit.  Premising  that  an  average  is  a  very 
crude  expression  of  the  widely  varying  standards 
of  daily  working-time,  we  may  say  that  the  average 
length  of  the  work-day  in  the  factories  of  this  country 
has  decreased  from  twelve  or  fourteen  hours  at  the 
beginning  of  the  nineteenth  century,  to  about  ten 
hours  at  the  opening  of  the  twentieth  century. 


192  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

This  statement  does  not  include  the  building  trades, 
wherein  the  hours  have  always  been  much  shorter; 
but  over  against  these  large  classes  of  wage  earners 
with  the  eight-hour  day  are  the  thousands  of  men 
employed  in  the  transportation  business — on  rail- 
roads, steamships,  docks,  trucks,  etc. — whose  work- 
ing hours  will  average  more  than  sixty  a  week. 
Hence,  on  the  whole,  we  shall  come  pretty  near  the 
mark  if  we  accept  ten  hours  as  the  average  working 
time  per  day  in  American  industries,  as  compared 
with  eight  hours  in  Australia,  nine  hours  in  England, 
and  about  eleven  hours  in  Continental  Europe. 

The  earliest  movement  for  shortening  the  work- 
day naturally  originated  in  the  building  trades, 
wherein  competition  is  localized  and  agreements 
concerning  the  conditions  of  work  thereby  greatly 
facilitated.  Very  soon  after  the  War  of  1812  the 
ship  carpenters  undertook  to  substitute  the  ten- 
hour  day  for  a  schedule  of  work  from  sun  to  sun,  and 
by  1825  began  to  realize  their  aspirations  through 
the  medium  of  strikes.  In  1840  President  Van 
Buren  issued  a  ten-hour  order  for  the  government 
navy  yards,  and  that  led  to  the  general  adoption  of 
the  ten-hour  day  throughout  the  ship  building  in- 
dustry of  the  country.  By  the  middle  of  the  cen- 
tury, ten  hours  had  become  the  customary  working 
time  for  the  mechanics  in  the  building  trades  of  the 
cities;  but  it  was  some  years  before  it  became  the 
standard  in  factories,  which  were  invariably  oper- 
ated for  eleven  hours  or  more.  In  1874,  the  year 
in  which  the  British  Parliament  established  the 
nine  and  one-half  hour  day  for  women  and  minors 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


193 


in  textile  factories,  Massachusetts  copied  the  Eng- 
lish ten-hour  law  of  1847.  Other  States  slowly 
followed  Massachusetts'  example,  and  by  1890,  ten 
hours  constituted  the  normal  work-day  in  American 
factories,  except  the  new  ones  in  the  Southern 
States.  While  two  or  three  State  legislatures  have 
further  reduced  the  weekly  working  time  to  fifty- 
five  (New  Jersey  and  Ohio)  and  fifty-eight 
(Massachusetts)  hours,  such  reductions  have  been 
counterbalanced  by  the  growth  of  factories  in  the 
South  with  the  consequent  increase  in  hours,  so  that 
ten  hours  still  represents  the  normal  work- day  of 
factory  operatives  in  this  country. 

The  movement  toward  the  ten-hour  day  in  fac- 
tories, following  the  Civil  War,  was  strengthened 
by  a  similar  movement  for  eight  hours  among  the 
building  mechanics,  who  had  already  won  for  them- 
selves the  ten-hour  day.  Their  desire  for  still 
shorter  hours  was  perfectly  natural,  because  as 
villages  grew  into  cities  their  work  places  became 
farther  and  farther  distant  from  their  homes,  so 
that  the  time  required  for  traveling  from  one  to  the 
other  made  serious  inroads  into  the  time  left  them 
for  the  enjoyment  of  leisure  and  home  life.  Just 
why  they  demanded  eight  hours  rather  than  nine 
hours  cannot  be  readily  explained  unless  we  ascribe 
it  to  foreign  influence.  Some  time  in  the  first  half 
of  the  nineteenth  century  the  English  workingmen 
had  started  the  eight-hour  movement  with  the 
slogan  "eight  hours  for  work;  eight  hours  for  play; 
eight  hours  for  sleep,  and  eight  'bobs'  (shillings)  a 
day";  and  as  early  as  1853  a  great  dispute  occurred 


194 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


in  London  which  turned  on  the  question  of  an  eight- 
hour  work-day.  The  London  workingmen  failed, 
but  three  years  later  a  similar  attempt  on  the  part 
of  some  of  the  building  trades  at  Melbourne,  Aus- 
tralia, resulted  in  the  establishment  of  the  eight- 
hour  day.  It  is  not  unlikely  that  these  foreign 
occurrences  found  an  echo  in  the  United  States;  at 
any  rate  the  General  Workmen's  Congress,  held  at 
Baltimore  the  first  year  after  the  war,  declared  the 
eight-hour  day  to  be  the  first  and  greatest  need  of 
labor,  and  in  the  same  year  the  ship  carpenters  un- 
successfully struck  for  eight  hours.  Legislation 
began  at  once,  Connecticut  leading  the  way  in  1867 
by  establishing  eight  hours  as  a  legal  day's  work  in 
the  absence  of  special  agreement;  the  United  States 
government  followed  the  next  year  with  an  eight- 
hour  law  for  its  employees,  and  the  larger  common- 
wealths speedily  enacted  similar  laws. 

It  thus  appears  that  the  eight-hour  movement  is 
no  new  thing,  but  is  on  the  contrary  a  long  cher- 
ished aspiration  of  the  working  people.  The  recog- 
nition accorded  it  by  economists  in  these  late  years 
was  foreshadowed  by  a  committee  of  the  Massa- 
chusetts Legislature  in  the  last  year  of  the  Civil  War. 
In  a  unanimous  report  made  on  April  28,  1865 
(nine  years  before  factory  legislation  began  in  that 
State),  a  joint  committee  of  the  Senate  and  the 
House  said:  "In  the  hearings  before  our  committee 
the  testimony  and  the  demand  were  unanimous  for 
a  still  further  decrease  of  the  hours  of  labor,  praying 
for  a  limitation  by  law  of  eight  hours  as  a  legal 
day's  labor The  testimony  of  those  who  ap- 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


195 


peared  before  us  and  who  represented  and  spoke 
the  sentiments  of  thousands  of  their  fellow-crafts- 
men, demonstrated  to  our  satisfaction  that  not  only 
could  the  productive  industry  of  the  country  bear 
this,  but  even  more."  But  the  obstacle  in  the  way 
of  State  legislation  for  a  maximum  labor  day  was 
the  fear  that  it  might  be  at  least  a  temporary 
handicap  in  the  competition  with  rival  States,  and 
this  apprehension  prevented  any  effective  legislation 
for  several  years.  Even  when  it  did  come,  it  simply 
took  the  form  of  limiting  the  daily  hours  of  work  in 
factories  to  the  normal  day  in  general  employment 
(ten  hours). 

While  on  public  works  the  eight -hour  day  was 
established  by  legislation,  in  private  industries  eight 
hours  became  the  standard  only  to  the  extent  that 
it  was  agreed  upon  between  employers  and  their 
workmen.  A  single  exception  to  this  rule  de- 
serves mention  on  account  of  the  important  de- 
cision from  the  United  States  Supreme  Court  that 
it  called  forth;  I  refer  to  the  legislation  of  Wyoming, 
Utah  and  other  Western  States  prohibiting  a  longer 
work-day  than  one  of  eight  hours  in  all  mines  and 
smelters.  The  constitutionality  of  this  legislation 
has  been  settled  affirmatively  by  our  highest  court 
in  its  consideration  of  the  Utah  statute  of  1896. 
Other  legislation  restricting  the  hours  of  work  of 
adult  males  in  private  industries  has  been  sustained 
by  the  courts  of  various  States  with  reference  to 
such  occupations  as  those  of  bakers,  barbers,  rail- 
road men,  and  so  on;  but  this  legislation,  like  that 
limiting  the  hours  of  labor  of  women  and  minors  in 


196  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

factories,  simply  enforces  for  such  work  the  ten-hour 
standard  existing  in  other  employments. 

There  was  a  time  when  the  impetus  given  to  the 
eight-hour  movement  by  the  eight-hour  laws  of  1867 
and  following  years  seemed  destined  to  place  private 
industries  on  the  eight-hour  basis.  The  working- 
men  and  their  friends  organized  eight-hour  leagues, 
parades  and  other  demonstrations,  and  through 
strikes  or  peaceful  means  established  the  eight-hour 
day  in  several  of  the  building  trades.  But  in  the 
very  midst  of  their  successes  the  financial  crisis  of 
1873  occurred,  and  in  the  long  business  depression 
that  followed  the  workmen  gave  up  their  short  hour 
privileges  and  rejoiced  to  find  work  under  any  con- 
ditions. It  was  nearly  ten  years  before  they  re- 
sumed their  campaign,  first  through  the  Knights  of 
Labor,  which  developed  their  maximum  strength  in 
the  middle  of  the  eighties ;  and  subsequently  through 
the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  which  for  the  last 
fifteen  years  has  held  the  hegemony  of  the  labor 
movement  in  this  country.  In  1885  the  union  cigar 
makers  won  the  eight-hour  day,  and  since  then  most 
of  the  building  trades — bricklayers  and  masons, 
stone  cutters,  carpenters,  painters,  lathers,  plumbers 
and  others — have  reduced  their  hours  of  work  to 
eight  or  nine  daily — the  eight-hour  day,  forty-four 
hours  a  week,  being  general  in  the  constructive 
industry  of  the  larger  cities.  Most  of  the  miners, 
either  through  legislation  or  agreement  with 
employers,  have  also  reduced  hours  of  work 
to  eight  per  day.  The  printers  who  get  out 
the  German  newspapers,  and  the  operators  of  type 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  I97 

setting  machines,  have  likewise  established  the 
eight-hour  day;  while  the  other  union  printers 
have,  by  agreement  with  the  American  Newspaper 
Publishers'  Association  made  nine  hours  the  present 
standard  in  the  printing  industry.  Union  glass 
workers  and  piano  and  organ  workers  have  also 
made  nine  hours  the  maximum  working  time  in 
scattered  localities,  and  the  same  applies  to  union 
machinists  and  blacksmiths,  who  are  almost  the 
only  men  in  the  iron  and  steel  trades  who  have  made 
a  concerted  effort  to  do  away  with  the  ten-hour 
day. 

The  extent  to  which  American  industry  is  moving 
away  from  the  ten-hour  day  may  be  indicated  by 
brief  reference  to  the  statistics  of  the  Department 
of  Labor  of  this  State.  Of  the  647,000  persons  em- 
ployed in  factories  inspected  by  the  Department's 
staff  last  year,  only  62  per  cent,  were  working  more 
than  nine  and  one-half  hours  a  day,  and  in  New  York 
City  the  proportion  fell  to  46  per  cent.,  or  less  than 
one-half  of  all  the  employees.  Almost  one-half  of 
the  organized  working  people  in  this  State  now  work 
on  the  eight-hour  schedule. 

The  proposal  to  establish  a  general  eight-hour 
day  is  a  matter  of  grave  concern  to  everybody  in- 
terested in  the  popular  welfare,  which  depends  in 
large  measure  upon  the  national  product.  Re- 
garding the  effect  of  such  a  reduction  in  the  working 
time  upon  the  aggregate  product  of  our  industries 
the  experience  of  the  past  affords  useful  lessons.  I 
think  that  any  person  who  makes  an  unprejudiced 
study  of  the  historical  tendency  to  shorten  the  hours 


198  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

of  labor  during  the  nineteenth  century  will  inevit- 
ably come  to  a  conclusion  in  favor  of  the  shorterwork 
day,  which  has  meant  (i)  increased  physical  effi- 
ciency (2)  greater  intelligence  and  inventiveness 
among  the  workers,  and  (3)  a  purer  family  life,  which 
in  turn  signifies  in  the  succeeding  generation  better 
trained  and  more  trustworthy  workers  on  the  one 
hand,  and  on  the  other  fewer  paupers,  criminals  and 
other  unproductive  persons  to  be  maintained  out 
of  the  social  product. 

The  bearing  of  these  conclusions  upon  the  present 
discussion  may  be  illustrated  with  one  or  two  con- 
crete cases:  A  few  months  ago  the  New  York  State 
Board  of  Arbitration  was  called  upon  to  mediate 
a  difficulty  in  several  saw  mills  in  the  Tupper  Lake 
region,  where  the  workingmen  had  refused  to  con- 
tinue to  work  eleven  hours  a  day.  They  asserted 
that  they  had  been  able  to  endure  work  for  eleven 
hours  so  long  as  the  mills  depended  upon  water  power, 
but  that  with  the  introduction  of  steam  power  and 
the  consequent  speeding  of  the  machinery  they  were 
completely  exhausted  before  the  day  closed.  And 
investigation  in  fact  showed  that  these  laborers  were 
obliged  to  lay  off  every  other  week  or  month  and 
seek  recuperation  in  hunting  or  lumbering  work. 
The  employers  in  this  instance  declined  to  submit 
the  dispute  to  arbitration,  on  the  ground  presumably 
that  they  found  the  eleven-hour  day  more  profitable 
than  a  shorter  day.  But  to  the  community  at 
large  the  system  is  unprofitable,  for  it  leaves  the  men 
no  time  or  energy  to  perform  their  duties  as  citizens 
and  wears  them  out  at  an  early  age.  If  they  were 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  199 

slaves  instead  of  freemen,  it  would  pay  the  master 
to  take  better  care  of  them. 

This  illustration  shows  that  the  real  crux  of  the 
question  of  hours  lies  in  the  point  of  view  taken,  and 
nowhere  has  it  been  more  tersely  stated  than  in  these 
words  of  Professor  Clark,  of  Columbia  University: 

"If  you  want  a  man  to  work  for  you  one  day  and 
one  day  only,  and  secure  the  greatest  possible  amount 
of  work  he  is  capable  of  performing  you  must  make 
him  work  for  twenty-four  hours.  If  you  would  have 
him  work  a  week  it  will  be  necessary  to  reduce  the 
time  to  twenty  hours  a  day ;  if  you  want  him  to  work 
for  a  month  a  still  further  reduction  to  eighteen 
hours  a  day.  For  the  year,  fifteen  hours  a  day  will 
do ;  for  several  years,  ten  hours ;  but  if  you  wish  to  get 
the  most  out  of  a  man  for  a  working  lifetime,  you  will 
have  to  reduce  his  hours  of  labor  to  eight  each  day. ' ' 

Here  is  the  eight-hour  question  in  a  nutshell. 
Because  the  community  had  a  vital  interest  in  the 
life-long  efficiency  of  its  workers,  it  reduced  the 
hours  of  labor  to  ten  hours  a  day  at  a  time  when 
many  employers  insisted  that  the  reduction  meant 
a  serious  curtailment  of  output.  And  yet  the  ex- 
perience of  a  few  years  showed  that  such  curtail- 
ment was  temporary  only;  within  three  years  after 
the  English  ten-hour  law  of  1847  went  into  effect, 
the  Chief  Factory  Inspector  reported  that  operatives 
employed  on  piece  work  were  as  a  rule  making  as 
good  wages  as  ever;*  and  so  overwhelming  were  the 

*  Factory  Inspector  Horner  reported  that  "in  all 
those  departments  of  the  factory  in  which  wages  are 


200  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

proofs  of  enhanced  efficiency  a  few  years  later  that 
bitter  opponents  of  the  ten-hour  law  became  earnest 
supporters  of  a  bill  to  extend  the  law  to  non-textile 
factories.  Precisely  similar  results  followed  the 
enactment  of  the  Massachusetts  ten-hour  law  of 
1874,  as  proved  in  Carroll  D.  Wright's  official  inves- 
tigation of  1 88 1,  which  led  to  similar  enactments  in 
the  other  manufacturing  States  . 

That  the  time  is  now  ripe  for  another  general  re- 
duction in  the  daily  working  time  is  indicated  by 
the  testimony  of  physicians  and  the  mortality  statis- 

paid  by  piece-work — and  these  constitute  probably  not 
less  than  four-fifths  of  the  whole — it  has  been  found  that 
the  quantity  produced  in  ten  and  one-half  hours  falls  little 
short  of  that  formerly  obtained  from  twelve  hours.  In 
some  cases  it  is  said  to  be  equal.  This  is  accounted  for 
partly  by  the  increased  stimulus  given  to  ingenuity  to  make 
the  machines  more  perfect  and  capable  of  increased  speed, 
but  it  arises  far  more  from  the  work  people  by  improved 
health,  by  absence  of  that  weariness  and  exhaustion  which 
the  long  hours  occasioned,  and  by  their  increased  cheer- 
fulness and  activity,  being  enabled  to  work  more  steadily 
and  diligently  and  to  economize  time,  intervals  of  rest  while 
at  their  work  being  now  less  necessary." 

In  a  recent  study  of  English  factory  legislation,  George  H. 
Wood  voices  the  general  conclusion  when  he  says  that 
"  as  a  rule  the  effect  of  each  limitation  of  the  hours  of 
labor  has  been  to  raise  wages,  though  for  a  while  they  may 
have  fallen  a  little.  This  usually  operates  through  an 
increase  in  the  efficiency  of  labor,  which  maintains  or  in- 
creases the  former  output  in  the  lessened  hours." 

American  experience  has  taught  the  same  lesson  of  the 
dependence  of  efficiency  upon  a  high  standard  of  living. 
After  the  enactment  of  the  ten-hour  law  in  Massachusetts, 
proprietors  of  cotton  mills  in  that  State  complained  that 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  2Oi 

tics  of  occupations.  Medical  research  shows  that  a 
ten-hour  day  in  modern  industry  calls  for  an  ex- 
penditure of  either  muscular  or  nervous  energy  or 
both — depending  upon  the  nature  of  the  work — 
that  inevitably  shortens  life.  If  we  ask  for  stronger 
proof  than  that  furnished  by  individual  physicians, 
it  can  be  found  in  the  English  mortality  statistics, 
which  show  that  the  death  rate  among  occupied 
males  is  almost  twice  as  great  in  the  industrial  as  in 
the  agricultural  districts.  Taking  1,000  as  the 
standard  of  measurement  for  all  males,  we  find 

they  were  unable  to  compete  with  rival  factories  in  the 
neighboring  communities  of  New  England  and  New  York, 
which  were  operated  eleven  or  eleven  and  one-half  hours  a 
day.  They  submitted  their  books  to  show  that  the  labor 
cost  of  their  goods  had  increased  almost  proportionately  with 
the  forced  reduction  of  hours.  While  they  could  not  prevail 
upon  the  Legislature  to  repeal  the  law,  they  succeeded  in 
having  an  official  investigation  of  the  question  made  by  the 
State  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics.  The  report  of  Carroll  D. 
Wright,  then  chief  of  the  Massachusetts  Bureau  ,  vindicated 
the  ten-hour  law. 

Colonel  Wright's  famous  report  of  1881  declared  (page  457) 
that  "  Massachusetts  with  ten  hours  produces  as  much  per 
man  or  per  loom  or  per  spindle,  equal  grades  being  consid- 
ered, as  other  States  with  eleven  hours  or  more,"  and  also 
that  "  wages  here  rule  as  high,  if  not  higher,  than  in  the 
States  where  the  mills  run  longer  time."  As  a  matter  of 
fact,  the  cotton  industry  of  Massachusetts  has  outstripped 
that  of  all  her  rivals  in  the  North  in  every  decade  since  the 
enactment  of  her  ten-hour  law.  In  1870,  four  years  prior  to 
the  passage  of  the  law,  Massachusetts  had  only  39  per  cent, 
of  all  the  cotton  spindles  in  the  North  Atlantic  States;  since 
then  Massachusetts  has  gradually  increased  its  proportion  to 
54  per  cent,  at  the  census  of  1900. 


202  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

the  mortality  among  dock  laborers  to  be  1,829  as 
compared  with  604  among  schoolmasters.  The 
enormous  disparity  points  to  a  most  unprofitable 
organization  of  industry.  In  the  United  States, 
according  to  the  unanimous  testimony  of  American 
and  foreign  observers,  the  workingmen  are  worn  out 
at  an  even  earlier  age  than  in  England  or  elsewhere. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Our  next  speaker  will  be  Mr. 
Lewis  Nixon,  President  of  the  United  States  Ship- 
building Company. 

MR.  NIXON:  I  did  not  intend  to  do  anything  but 
come  here  and  listen  to  you.  It  seems,  however, 
that  there  is  an  impression — certainly  I  have  gath- 
ered it  myself,  and  I  fear  that  some  of  the  others 
may  have  gathered  it — that  those  of  us  who  are  on 
the  executive  committee  as  representing  the  manu- 
facturers' side  have  been  content  to  sit  and  listen 
to  a  number  of  reflections  upon  the  manufacturers 
as  distinguished  from  the  men  who  labor  for  the 
manufacturers.  There  can  be  no  question,  I  think, 
among  those  who  have  studied  conditions  in  this 
country,  but  that  one  of  the  great  successes  in  manu- 
facturing in  America  arises  from  the  fact  that  the 
wage  earners  and  the  man  who  employs  them  are  co- 
laborers  and  that  they  both  work.  Hence,  I  did 
not  want  the  impression  to  go  forth  that  we  were 
satisfied  to  have  reflections  as  to  our  sense  of  right 
and  justice  in  our  dealings  with  the  wage  earner 
go  by  without  answering  them.  I  think  that  you 
will  all  agree  that  the  manufacturing  interests  of 
this  country  have  produced  such  results,  in  the  re- 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


203 


finement  of  their  product,  in  the  economy  of  pro- 
duction, and  in  the  way  that  they  have  ennobled 
the  action  of  those  who  engage  in  manufacturing, 
that  they  are  on  an  equality  with  any  profession 
or  any  occupation.  Therefore,  I  arise  to  speak  to-day 
for  the  manufacturer,  and  I  do  so  because  I  realize 
that  I  am  a  worker.  I  do  not  believe  that  any  man 
can  rise  in  this  country  unless  he  is  a  worker.  It 
is  in  that  respect  that  our  industrial  conditions 
differ  so  much  from  those  described  by  Mr.  Mosely 
as  prevailing  in  England.  He  spoke  of  the  differ- 
ence between  Master  and  Man.  Here  we  work  with 
the  men,  not  over  them,  and  welcome  every  sug- 
gestion which  they  have  to  offer.  I  therefore  wanted 
simply  to  emphasize  the  fact  that  we,  as  manu- 
facturers, do  not  acknowledge  that  we  hold  the 
sword  over  the  workingman  and  keep  from  him 
those  rights  to  which  he  is  justly  entitled.  I  have 
heard  it  said  here  absolutely,  without  any  denial, 
that  the  whole  system  of  piece-work — one  of  the 
things  that  has  done  so  much  for  the  upbuilding  of 
American  manufacture — was  based  on  injustice; 
that  we  stand  and  watch  a  man,  and  if  he  increases 
his  daily  output  we  cut  down  the  rate  so  he  cannot 
make  a  living  wage.  That  may  be  so  in  individual 
instances,  but  it  is  not  true  of  American  industries 
generally;  otherwise,  they  would  not  be  what  they 
are  to-day.  (Applause.)  It  is  not  true. 

Now,  we  have  had  a  great  deal  of  talk  here  to-day 
on  the  eight-hour  question,  and  I  wish  it  understood 
very  plainly  that  I  speak  as  a  friend  of  the  laboring 
man  and  one  who  believes  in  reducing  to  the  lowest 


204 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


possible  degree  the  hours  of  labor.  I  have  reduced 
them  myself.  You  have  all  heard  the  story  of  the 
crowd  of  men  who  were  watching  an  unfortunate  man 
who  had  been  hurt  on  the  street.  After  many  people 
had  expressed  their  sympathy,  one  man  took  off  his 
hat  and  put  a  dollar  in  it  and  passed  it  around,  say- 
ing: "I  sympathize  with  this  man  one  dollar's 
worth,  how  much  do  you  sympathize  with  him?" 
My  sympathy  has  cost  me  forty  or  fifty  thousand 
dollars  a  year  in  the  last  five  years,  so  I  know  just 
what  these  conditions  mean,  nevertheless  I  consider 
the  money  well  expended.  But  I  think  that  we,  as 
manufacturers,  if  we  are  going  to  say  anything  and 
assume  our  responsibility  on  this  committee,  ought 
to  give  you  something  from  a  manufacturer's  point 
of  view.  You  have  heard  it  said  that  the  rapid  in- 
crease in  the  number  of  inventions  of  labor-saving 
machinery  are  expressions  of  our  wonderful  ingenuity 
in  the  form  of  tools  and  appliances  for  lessening  the 
amount  of  work  which  has  to  be  put  upon  the  unit 
of  production — has  been  one  of  the  great  causes  of 
our  advance.  We  have  great  tools  and  great  ma- 
chinery. It  is  the  custom  here  in  this  country  to 
scrap  a  whole  machine  shop  if  it  is  out  of  date.  We 
wipe  it  out  if  we  possibly  can,  rather  than  patch  it  up. 
The  consequence  is  that  when  you  reduce  radically 
the  hours  of  labor,  you  do  not  simply  put  a  number 
of  men  out  of  the  workshop,  but  you  let  that  great 
tool  lie  idle.  Now,  I  am  perfectly  satisfied  as  a  manu- 
facturer that  we  shall  come  to  the  time  when  we  will 
let  that  tool  lie  idle.  The  advantage  of  a  dual  shift 
running  sixteen  hours  has  been  put  forward.  That 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  205 

is  very  well  in  theory,  but  you  have  to  cipher  every 
thing  down  in  manufacturing,  gentlemen,  and  I  want 
to  tell  you  that,  while  we  have  heard  a  great  deal 
of  industrial  philosophy  and  a  great  deal  from  the 
dilettante,  the  workman  and  his  employer  know  that 
the  basis  upon  which  they  are  going  to  settle  every- 
thing is,  "Does  it  pay?  "  and  unless  you  apply  that 
criterion,  you  will  not  arrive  at  any  definite  result. 
(Applause.)  If  it  does  not  pay,  a  manufacturer  can- 
not continue  to  operate.  Now,  I  would  like  to  see 
every  man  who  works  for  a  wage  in  America  able 
to  enjoy  the  delights  and  pleasures  of  his  family,  to 
have  recreation  at  night,  and  not  be  driven  into  the 
bar-room,  the  condition  of  which  Mr.  Gunton  speaks. 
The  latter  is  rapidly  coming  to  be  the  case  in  this 
country ;  but  the  manufacturer  sometimes  has  a  little 
worry  himself.  If,  on  Saturday  night  he  must  pro- 
duce ten  thousand  dollars  to  pay  his  workmen — and 
that  is  one  thing  that  is  never  held  up  in  this  country 
— and  after  scraping  the  bottom  of  his  till  and  passing 
all  the  notes  that  he  can  possibly  do,  he  can  only  get 
nine  thousand,  he  has  worries  that  come  home  about 
as  straight  as  any  of  the  wage-earner's  troubles. 
And,  therefore,  when  men  come  to  him  in  a  perfectly 
fair,  square  way  and  say,  "we  want  more  money  or 
we  want  less  time,"  there  should  be  that  communion 
between  them,  that  understanding  as  between  man 
and  man,  which  will  let  them  talk  it  over.  And  that 
is  what  my  conception  is  of  the  advantage  and  the 
aim  of  this  committee  that  we  have  now  which  has 
brought  about  this  most  interesting  discussion.  I 
know  that  there  is  admitted  here — and  almost  uni- 


206  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

versally  throughout  the  country — the  divine  right  of 
organization,  but  those  who  are  most  anxious  to  as- 
sert the  divine  right  want  to  draw  the  line.  Now, 
where  does  the  line  stop?  For  instance,  if  we  had 
all  the  garment  workers  in  any  one  district,  and  if 
ninety  per  cent,  of  them  were  to  combine  for  their 
mutual  protection  that  they  might  make  better 
profits  and  get  along  better  in  the  world  and  improve 
their  production,  and  the  other  ten  per  cent,  would 
stay  out,  have  the  ninety  per  cent,  a  right  to  compel 
the  factories  to  close  and  tell  them  they  cannot  work  ? 
Of  course  they  have  not,  and  no  one  thinks  they 
have.  And  I  have  been  very  much  struck  by  the 
conservatism  of  those  leaders  of  labor  who  have 
spoken  here.  They  have  not  been  nearly  so  radical 
in  what  they  have  said  as  the  dilettante  and  the  pro- 
fessor of  labor.  (Laughter.)  But  they  have  given 
us  good,  real  common  sense,  and  they  have  given  us 
reasons  why  they  want  certain  conditions,  and  I  am 
very  well  satisfied  that  we  want  to  arrive  as  near  as 
possible  to  what  they  advise. 

I  have. heard  it  said  here  that  we  did  not  need 
foreign  orders — let  us  stick  to  the  home  markets. 
Now,  the  wonderful  industrial  and  commercial  up- 
building of  this  country  has  been  on  such  a  scale 
that  we  are  liable  to  have  periods  of  industrial  depres- 
sion due  to  overproduction  and  congestion,  and,  I 
may  be  in  a  minority  in  believing  it,  but  I  do  believe 
that  one  of  the  great  balance  wheels  of  our  whole 
industrial  economy  lies  in  the  fact  that  the  surplus 
or  overplus  can  be  taken  care  of.  If  we  can  arrive  at 
that  delightful  condition  of  affairs  where  we  are  able  to 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


207 


consume  everything  that  we  produce,  that  is  splendid, 
and  it  is  a  condition  of  affairs,  of  course,  that  is 
pleasing  to  everyone.  If,  however,  there  conies  a 
time  when  somebody  must  shut  up  his  shop  because 
the  people  cannot  take  his  product,  it  means  disaster 
all  through  the  country,  and  hence  I  think  that  we 
do  need  a  foreign  market.  Countries  are  getting 
closer  together.  Nations  are  awakening  to  new  de- 
sires, and,  as  you  know,  when  a  man  wakes  to  new 
desires,  he  somehow  develops  a  capacity  for  satisfying 
them,  and  hence  the  world  deals  with  the  world. 
The  United  States  cannot  afford  to  build  a  Chinese 
wall  around  itself  and  shut  itself  up  and  say:  "We 
are  going  to  consume  everything  we  manufacture,  and 
when  we  cannot  do  it  we  will  shut  down  the  factories 
to  make  the  production  profitable."  Mr.  Mosely 
said  yesterday:  "If  that  is  the  case  and  you  are 
going  to  depend  upon  your  home  market,  you  have 
too  many  workmen  in  the  United  States."  Now,  the 
workmen  are  the  men  who  are  developing  our  wonder- 
ful resources,  and  they  are  the  men  who  are  going  to 
develop  and  bring  out  America,  and  we  cannot  have 
too  many  of  them.  We  want  to  bring  on  the  condi- 
tions that  will  not  only  keep  them  employed,  but 
enable  us  to  continue  those  high  wages  throughout  all 
time,  and  if  we  are  going  to  do  that,  we  must  consider 
the  foreign  market  and  consider  it  seriously. 

Mr.  Mosely  spoke  yesterday,  too,  about  comparing 
the  European  and  English  workmen  with  the  Ameri- 
can workmen.  He  lost  sight  of  one  thing.  I  do  not 
know  whether  I  will  tread  upon  the  toes  of  any  pro- 
hibitionist in  stating  what  I  shall  say  on  the  question 


208  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

of  liquor  in  England.  I  lived  in  England  for  three 
years.  I  went  among  the  men  who  worked  because 
I  went  abroad  to  study  shipbuilding — and  that  is  the 
great  nation  of  shipbuilders — and  I  wanted  to  know 
how  they  lived  and  to  get  their  ideas  and  to  under- 
stand something  of  their  point  of  view.  The  climate 
of  England  is  such  that  no  man  can  do  a  hard  day's 
work  unless  he  drinks.  (Laughter.)  That  may 
seem  a  startling  expression ;  but  it  is  absolutely  true. 
(Applause.)  In  America  we  are  blessed  in  a  way 
that  we  can  hardly  conceive.  The  very  air  we 
breathe  is  tonic  and  exhilarating  to  such  an  extent 
that  a  man  can  do  more  work  here,  and  he  does  not 
need  stimulating  liquors.  Really  their  use  is  a  hurt 
and  detriment  to  him,  and  if  he  does  more  work  he 
ought  to  and  does  get  more  pay. 

There  was  another  thing  that  struck  me  very 
forcibly  in  Mr.  Mosely's  remarks.  I  am  going  to  take 
a  text  from  everybody  that  I  can.  Mr.  Mosely  said: 
"I  see  you  call  large  corporations  trusts."  I  am 
sorry  to  say  that  a  great  many  people  do.  It  is  be- 
cause this  country,  which  owes  its  great  industrial  up- 
building to  the  stability  and  permanence  given  to  in- 
dustrial conditions  by  corporations,  has  taken  the 
trouble  also  of  manufacturing  something  that  has  al- 
ways worked  at  its  full  capacity,  the  bogy  man. 
And  while  there  are  a  great  many  bad  things  about 
corporations  which  would  put  down  wages  and  re- 
strict the  output,  the  great  corporations  of  this  coun- 
try are  the  laboring  man's  friend.  He  can  always 
deal  with  them ;  can  get  his  rights  and  his  hearing 
any  time,  and  he  knows  it. 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  209 

Now,  of  course,  I  am  not  one  of  those  who  believe 
in  too  much  law,  certainly  law  that  interferes  with 
the  individual.  I  believe  that  all  the  questions 
affecting  the  good  of  both  the  wage-earner  and  those 
who  pay  him  or  those  who  employ  him  are  going  to 
be  settled  by  evolution  and  by  a  gradual  understand- 
ing on  the  part  of  each  of  the  real  claims  of  the  other 
man.  And  as  we  find  with  our  development  of  tools 
and  our  facilities  and  our  inventions  that  we  can 
produce  more  work  in  fewer  hours,  then  those  fewer 
hours  are  coming.  They  have  practically  come  al- 
ready, and  I  want  to  say  that  if  you  will  make  them 
universal  and  fair,  I  believe  the  manufacturers  will 
meet  you  more  than  half  way.  But  I  must  state  an 
illustration  which  comes  straight  home  to  you.  If  I 
work  nine  hours  in  my  shipyard  and  compete  with  a 
man  who  works  ten  hours  in  Philadelphia,  you  know 
just  exactly  where  I  am  going  to  come  out.  The 
question  of  ships  is  not  settled  on  sentiment  but  on 
price,  and  hence  the  man  that  works  ten  hours  will 
get  the  business.  They  say,  "No;  that  is  not  true. 
The  men  who  work  nine  hours  are  better  men  and 
will  come  here."  But  unfortunately  that  is  not 
true,  and  I  want  to  tell  you  something  that  has  hap- 
pened. I  just  called  up  on  the  telephone  before  I 
came  here  to  find  out  what  the  men  make  who  are 
paid  by  piece,  and  I  find  they  are  getting  six,  seven 
and  eight  dollars  a  day,  depending  largely  upon  the 
weather.  The  men  who  work  for  them,  the  more 
skilled  men,  they  pay  four  dollars,  and  they  pay  their 
laborers  a  special  wage  of  twenty-five  cents  more 
than  the  rest  of  the  yard.  Now,  we  endeavored  to 


210  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

settle  the  piece-work  scale  on  some  drilling.  The 
men  were  then  getting  $2.25  per  day.  We  wanted  to 
give  them  so  much  for  drilling  a  hole.  All  right ;  we 
gave  them  finally  exactly  what  they  asked  and  they 
are  making  now  $3.85.  Now,  they  either  loafed  on 
us  at  the  $2.25  on  which  we  based  the  payment,  or 
they  have  not  been  fair.  Anyway,  I  am  glad  they 
are  getting  $3.85,  because  I  am  getting  the  work  done, 
and  I  have  not  cut  them  down,  and  I  don't  believe 
any  other  manufacturer  will  cut  them  down  either. 

So  let  us,  if  we  can,  bring  about  this  condition 
that  we  are  working  for  without  shock.  Let  us  do 
as  we  have  done  and  meet  together.  When  we  have 
to  come  to  a  point  where  we  cannot  settle  things, 
we  will  fight  it  out.  Now,  I  rarely  have  any  fight 
myself,  but  I  am  talking  generally.  It  sometimes 
clears  the  atmosphere  and  settles  the  question  which 
you  cannot  settle  otherwise.  I  do  not  believe  in  cod- 
dling any  man  who  works  for  me,  because  I  would  not 
let  a  man  do  that  to  me  when  I  was  working.  So  I 
say  to  men,  if  you  want  to  give  men  libraries  and 
things  they  don't  want,  turn  around  and  give  it  to 
them  in  hours  and  money  and  they  will  be  better 
satisfied.  (Great  applause.) 

MR.  MOSELY:  Mr.  Chairman,  may  I  arise  again? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes,  sir;  you  are  a  privileged 
character. 

MR.  MOSELY:  It  is  a  question  more  of  sentiment 
perhaps  than  anything  else.  Mr.  Nixon  made  the 
remark  that  in  England  he  thought  drink  a  neces- 
sity of  the  people.  I  beg  on  behalf  of  England  to 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE,  211 

offer  a  protest  to  that  statement.  (Laughter.)  I 
have  done  in  my  time  a  good  many  hours  of  work, 
sixteen,  eighteen  or  twenty,  whatever  it  was  neces- 
sary to  do  when  I  was  in  business,  but  I  have  never 
been  a  drinker,  and  I  know  a  great  many  men  who 
have  never  been  drinkers  who  have  been  able  to 
put  in  a  better  day's  work  than  those  who  do.  I 
should  like  to  know  if  he  considers  drink  an  abso- 
lute necessity  to  our  race. 

MR.  NIXON:  Gentlemen,  I  have  found  that  the 
Englishmen  who  come  over  with  me  sometimes 
drink  pretty  hard  for  a  year,  and  then  they  loosen  up 
and  become  better  men.  I  do  not  know  whether 
Mr.  Mosely  considers  he  has  worked  his  eighteen 
hours  a  day  with  a  hammer  or  something  of  that 
sort.  I  am  talking  about  hard  physical  work  that 
takes  the  very  life  out  of  you.  I  know,  very  well 
a  man  can  work  eighteen  hours  a  day.  I  have  done 
it  myself,  and  whatever  little  measure  of  success  has 
come  to  me  has  been  because  I  have  worked  longer  than 
eight  hours  a  day, because  when  I  work  eight  hours  I  am 
on  the  same  basis  as  the  other  men.  And  when  in  Eng- 
land I  probably  did  take  a  drink.  But  I  talked  to  the 
men  themselves  and  they  said  it  was  necessary  and  I 
have  to  take  their  evidence.  (Applause  and  laughter.) 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  next  speaker  will  be  Mr. 
Marburg,  a  former  large  employer  of  labor,  and  Vice- 
President  of  the  American  Economic  Association. 

MR.  MARBURG:  A  Scotch  judge  who  was  dis- 
turbingly prompt  in  rendering  his  decisions,  had 
said  of  him",  "He  has  nae  fears,  he  has  nae  doots,  He 


212 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


gangs  by  instinct  like  the  brutes."  If  you  find  a 
dearth  of  statistics  and  historical  allusion  in  the 
short  paper  I  am  about  to  present  I  hope  you  will 
not  attribute  it  to  an  over-reliance  on  instinct. 
There  are  some  questions  that  cannot  be  solved  by 
statistics  and  history;  Would  any  amount  of  in- 
vestigation of  economic  conditions  in  the  South 
have  helped  Abraham  Lincoln  to  solve  the  slavery 
question,  or  is  it  likely  that  the  most  impartial  and 
enlightened  commission  he  could  have  sent  there 
would  have  recommended  abolition?  We  are  all 
apt  to  think  existing  conditions  founded  in  neces- 
sity. Furthermore,  both  business  men  and  scien- 
tific men  are  prone  to  neglect  the  dynamic  side  of 
questions;  i.e.,  the  new  forces  that  are  brought  into 
play  with  new  conditions. 

Few  of  us  doubt  that  the  career  of  unexampled 
economic  activity  upon  which  our  own  country  has 
entered  points  to  ascendency  in  the  field  of  industry. 
What  concerns  us  is  to  study  the  forces  that  are 
calculated  to  make  our  position  secure  and  enduring, 
There  is  reason  to  believe  that  the  cycles  of  growth 
and  decay  that  mark  the  history  of  nations  were 
born  of  conditions  that  are  being  modified.  The 
new  places  of  the  earth,  the  cultivation  of  which 
moved  the  centers  of  human  activity,  are  rapidly 
filling  up.  We  shall  probably  not  escape  the  fate 
of  other  nations,  but  we  may  postpone  the  day  of 
decline,  and  show  some  lasting  gain  to  humanity 
as  the  result  of  our  activities. 

Attention  to  the  ethical  side  of  the  labor  question 
is  one  means  of  bringing  this  about. 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  213 

In  approaching  this  subject  we  need  as  perspective 
a  consciousness  not  only  of  the  contribution  of 
machinery  to  wealth,  but  of  the  part  it  has  played  in 
increasing  opportunity  for  employment  and  in  in- 
creasing wages.  The  great  increase  in  the  number 
of  people  following  gainful  pursuits,  not  only  in 
America,  where  the  phenomenon  is  explained  partly 
by  the  existence  of  new  land  to  be  cultivated,  but 
in  Europe  too,  has  taken  place  since  the  advent  of 
power-machines.  It  has  been  shown  that  in  America 
money  wages  have  advanced  82  per  cent.,  and  real 
wages  132  per  cent.,  since  1840.  There  is  no  ques- 
tion but  that  machinery  means  increased  oppor- 
tunity and  increased  wages.  Now  this  increase  of 
wages  is  bound  to  come  to  the  laborer  whether  he 
makes  an  effort  to  secure  it  or  not.  If  it  does  not 
come  in  the  form  of  an  increase  in  money  wages, 
it  will  come  as  cheaper  commodities,  which  is  an 
increase  of  real  wages.  The  betterment  of  the  con- 
ditions of  labor  does  not  come  thus  automatically. 
There  is  no  such  economic  force  in  operation  there 
as  that  which  cheapens  commodities.  To  bring 
about  an  important  improvement  in  the  conditions 
of  labor,  including  shorter  hours,  calls  for  conscious 
action  on  the  part  of  society  or  of  some  group  of 
men. 

There  is  every  indication  that  long  before  the  be- 
ginning of  the  industrial  era  the  working  hours  in 
England  were  approximately  eight  per  day.  The 
industrial  era  which  brought  with  it  such  incal- 
culable ameliorations  for  men  in  so  many  directions 
did  not  produce  what  might  have  been  expected 


2i4  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

of  it,  an  important  lightening  of  the  burden  of  labor, 
and  conditions  calculated  to  promote  physical  vigor. 
As  it  developed,  the  hours  of  labor  increased  until 
they  reached  sixteen  per  day;  then  through  inter- 
ference of  Parliament,  through  the  pressure  of  pub- 
lic opinion,  and  of  trade  unions,  and  through  the 
force  of  public  opinion,  they  were  gradually  reduced, 
until  now  the  average  working  day  in  England  is 
nine  hours.  In  the  United  States  the  average  is 
close  to  ten  hours. 

We  are  all  familiar  with  the  way  in  which  machin- 
ery increases  our  command  over  the  forces  of  nature, 
but  a  few  instances  of  its  marvelous  aid  may  not  be 
out  of  place. 

One  hundred  years  ago  men  pointed  with  pride 
to  the  fact  that  by  means  of  division  of  labor  it  was 
possible  for  a  workman  to  produce  4,800  pins  a  day. 
Now  by  the  aid  of  machinery  one  man  produces  one 
and  a  half  millions.  The  making  of  a  pair  of  shoes 
by  the  latest  machinery  calls  for  only  one-fifth  of 
the  labor  required  a  few  years  ago.  The  hand  loom 
produced  about  45  yards  of  cotton  cloth  per  week. 
To-day  one  weaver  directing  six  power  machines 
produces  about  1,000  yards  per  week.  The  pro- 
duction of  plows  by  machinery  costs  one-seventh 
as  much  as  by  hand,  and  watch  movements  one- 
fortieth  as  much. 

It  is  possible  to  compare  the  results  of  old  meth- 
ods, still  persisted  in  in  England,  and  new  methods 
in  vogue  in  America.  The  English  nailmaker  and 
his  assistant  turn  out  200  pounds  of  nails  per  week, 
earning  together  less  than  $4.00.  The  Pittsburg 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  215 

nailmaker  and  his  assistant  turn  out  2 \  tons  per  week, 
earning  respectively  $30.00  and  $9.00. 

In  the  early  part  of  the  nineteenth  century  it 
took  236  hours  to  produce  a  given  quantity  of  cut 
nails,  which  are  now  produced  in  two  hours.  The 
cost  was  then  $20.24,  and  is  now  29  cents. 

The  laborer  gets  higher  wages,  and  more  for  his 
wages  as  time  goes  on,  but  much  of  his  expenditure 
is  dictated  by  the  necessity  of  conforming  to  the 
habits  of  his  neighbors.  The  money  he  spends  on  the 
education  of  his  children,  on  better  housing,  better 
food  and  clothing,  and  on  recreation,  is  well  spent, 
but  it  is  a  question  whether  the  gaudier  appearance 
of  the  household,  and  the  fancy  dress  of  the  women, 
add  much  to  the  household's  real  happiness. 

The  nucleus  of  the  position  here  taken  is  that 
adequate  leisure  for  the  laborer  will  mean  more  for 
society  than  a  further  increase  of  wages.  The  prog- 
ress of  industry  in  the  past  justifies  the  hope  of 
further  progress,  and  the  legitimate  object  of  a  move- 
ment for  shorter  hours  may  be  to  divert  the  benefits 
of  this  progress  from  the  channel  of  increased  wages 
to  that  of  increased  leisure.  That  progress,  we 
feel,  is  assured.  To  reduce  the  hours  of  labor  is 
simply  to  discount  this  advance  of  industry;  or, 
if  the  reduction  of  hours  be  sufficiently  gradual, 
it  need  do  no  more  than  keep  pace  with  the  advance. 

It  might  be  urged  that  it  matters  little  whether 
industry  gives  away  the  increase  in  the  form  of 
wages  or  in  the  form  of  leisure,  but  such  an  assertion 
needs  to  be  qualified.  If  the  gain  goes  to  the  la- 
borer as  increased  pay  in  money  wages  or  real  wages 


216  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

it  increases  the  purchasing  power  of  this  class  and 
stimulates  industry.  For  the  moment,  industry 
would  gain  more  by  the  increase  in  wages.  But  the 
true  interests  of  society  are  best  subserved  by  in- 
creasing the  mental,  moral  and  physical  stature 
of  the  working  man,  and  in  the  long  run  the  interests 
of  industry  and  society  in  this  respect  are  identical. 

The  greatest  machine  is  man.  If  we  improve 
him,  if  we  increase  his  personal  powers,  the  effect- 
iveness of  all  other  machinery  is  increased  thereby, 
since  it  is  he  who  invents  and  operates  it  all.  This 
is  what  we  mean  when  we  state  that  a  shorter  work- 
day than  the  present  average  of  nearly  ten  hours 
in  the  United  States  can  be  justified  on  purely 
economic  grounds. 

But  we  may  err  in  laying  stress  unceasingly  upon 
the  duty  of  increasing  commerce  and  industry  to 
the  exclusion  of  other  interests.  No  one  to-day 
disputes  the  importance  of  commerce.  Without 
the  wealth  which  commerce  creates  progress  would 
be  difficult.  But  after  all,  it  is  only  the  means  to 
an  end;  if  we  cease  to  so  regard  it,  we  abuse  it. 

Create  wealth.  That  is  the  first  injunction  of 
modern  society.  But  create  it  for  a  purpose.  The 
happiness  of  employer  and  laborer  alike  may  be 
sacrificed  under  the  iron  rule  of  economic  dictates 
and  men  forget  the  object  of  it  all.  Mere  growth  of 
numbers  and  trade  is  not  progress.  In  the  ancient 
world  we  saw  the  hordes  stationary,  whilst  little 
Greece  moved  forward  the  human  mind  and  spirit 
so  wonderfully.  To-day  it  is  western  Europe  and 
America,  with  comparatively  small  numbers,  as 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  317 

against  stationary  China  and  India.  I  recently 
visited  an  interesting  man  on  the  hearth  of  whose 
study  were  wrought  the  words,  "No  wealth  but  life." 
This  conclusion  of  Ruskin  had  been  adopted  by 
an  eminent  economist  thinking  on  the  subject  of 
wealth.  In  its  final  analysis  he  could  find  nothing 
material  in  wealth.  Life,  in  this  sense,  is  the  natural 
and  healthy  exercise  of  human  faculties,  and  this 
is  at  the  same  time  a  definition  of  happiness.  It 
is  the  intellectual  and  spiritual,  including  the  aesthetic, 
which  differentiates  us  from  the  animals,  and  if  this 
is  so,  the  highest  life  and  happiness  are  found  in  the 
healthy  exercise  of  these  faculties.  Feeding  and 
keeping  warm,  and  gathering  the  wherewithal  to 
feed  and  keep  warm  are  but  the  means  of  life;  they 
are  not  only  not  an  end  in  themselves,  but  are  not 
life,  and  those  whose  activities  cease  there  have  not 
lived. 

To  say  that  a  proper  use  would  not  be  made  of 
increased  leisure  is  a  reflection  upon  our  race.  We 
are  a  nation  of  strong  moral  motive,  have  shown 
ourselves  capable  of  great  disinterested  acts,  and 
can  be  trusted  to  use  wisely  additional  leisure. 
Some  men  would  spend  their  leisure  at  the  tavern, 
but  indulgence  to  excess  is  often  the  result  of  re- 
action, or  the  outcome  of  a  lack  of  balance  of  the 
nervous  system.  Lessening  the  strain  on  men  is 
not  likely  to  increase  such  indulgence.  The  actual 
experience  of  communities  where  hours  have  been 
shortened  points  to  improved  morals  in  the  working 
man. 

Plato  defines  the  free  man  as  he  who  is  sufficiently 


218  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

master  of  his  passions  to  follow  the  dictates  of 
reason  in  choosing  between  good  and  evil.  The 
definition  might  well  be  extended  to  include  suffi- 
cient mastery  over  environment  to  free  us  from  con- 
ditions which  hamper  growth. 

With  more  leisure  the  laborer  will  share  more  in 
the  mental  side  of  social  life,  and  will  be  compensated 
in  a  measure  for  the  loss  of  the  interesting  work 
which  engaged  the  attention  of  the  old  handicrafts- 
man. Give  him  a  little  plot  of  ground  in  which  to 
dig,  a  taste  for  reading,  light  the  spark  of  intel- 
lectual pleasure,  no  matter  of  what  kind,  and  awaken 
that  wonderful  desire  for  self-improvement  which 
has  carried  the  spirit  of  man  so  far  on  its  way,  and 
the  leisure  will  not  be  misspent.  He  will  feel  that 
the  conquest  of  mind  over  matter  is  his  inheritance 
too,  will  feel  it  all  the  more  because  of  his  growing 
intelligence,  will  feel  it  not  only  because  he  partici- 
pates more  largely  in  the  fruits  of  that  conquest, 
but  in  the  work  of  conquest.  We  have  yet  a  long 
way  to  travel  before  we  make  the  conditions  of 
labor  so  easy  as  to  impair  character. 

The  economic  cost  of  shorter  hours  will  vary  ac- 
cordingly as  the  proposed  reduction  of  hours  is 
inaugurated  abruptly  or  gradually  through  a  period 
of  years.  To  abruptly  reduce  the  working  day  by 
two  hours,  supposing  that*  to  be  the  reduction  con- 
templated, would  cause  a  dislocation  of  industry 
which  a  gradual  reduction  of  hours  would  avoid. 
A  programme  which  would  call  for  a  reduction  of 
a  quarter  of  an  hour  each  year  through  a  period  of 
eight  years  would  appeal  to  most  of  us  as  the  safer 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  219 

and  wiser  programme.  Gradual  as  against  abrupt 
change  expresses  a  principle  the  importance  of 
which  cannot  be  overstated  in  connection  with 
measures  affecting  industry. 

Our  industries  grew  under  the  Clay-Calhoun  com- 
promise, which  reduced  the  tariff  5  per  cent,  per 
annum  through  a  period  of  nine  years;  the  gradual 
reduction  acted  as  a  stimulus  to  invention. 

Economic  cost  must  be  considered  from  the  stand- 
point, first,  of  what  the  industrial  world  as  a  whole 
can  afford;  second,  of  what  any  particular  nation 
can  afford  in  view  of  its  competition  with  other 
nations. 

If  the  hours  prevailing  in  a  particular  country  are 
such  as  to  dull  the  faculties  and  lessen  the  energies 
of  men,  manifestly  there  will  be  an  immediate  gain 
from  reducing  them;  otherwise  it  is  deceptive  to 
look  to  increased  vigor  or  application  for  a  full  re- 
pair of  the  loss  in  personal  efficiency  per  day  which 
shorter  hours  would  bring.  The  demand  for  in- 
creased leisure  in  the  industrial  world  as  a  whole 
may  be  justified  by  the  ever  increasing  efficiency 
which  arises  from  industrial  progress,  irrespective 
of  any  improvement  in  the  laborer  himself.  The 
improvement  in  the  laborer  may  come — it  will 
come — but  the  argument  need  not  rest  upon  any 
such  supposition. 

Upon  the  question  of  economic  cost  from  the 
standpoint  of  what  any  one  nation  can  afford  in 
view  of  its  competition  with  other  nations,  English 
experience  throws  considerable  light.  We  have  seen 
the  working  day  in  England  reduced  from  sixteen 


220  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

hours  per  day  in  the  early  part  of  the  last  century  to 
an  average  of  nine  hours  per  day.  Before  this  re- 
duction of  hours  began  in  1835  the  number  of  oper- 
atives in  the  textile  industry  was  220,000;  in  1890 
it  was  528,000. 

Macaulay  made  an  eloquent  plea  for  the  eight- 
hour  bill  of  1847,  dwelling  upon  the  prime  impor- 
tance of  preserving  the  physique  and  energies  of  the 
race.  The  opponents  of  the  measure  protested 
against  it  as  an  "invasion  of  the  rights  of  property," 
and  as  preventing  the  laborer  from  using  the  facul- 
ties with  which  God  had  blessed  him.  If  was 
urged  that  hours  could  not  be  reduced  without  re- 
ducing wages;  that  the  trade  of  England  would 
be  ruined  if  the  bill  passed.  Such  an  enlightened 
and  progressive  champion  of  the  people  as  John 
Bright  went  entirely  wrong  on  the  question.  He 
called  it  a  proposition  "injurious  and  destructive 
to  the  best  interests  of  the  country;  contrary  to  all 
principles  of  sound  legislation,  a  delusion  practiced 
upon  the  working  people,  and  the  worst  measure 
ever  passed  in  the  shape  of  an  act  of  legislation." 
He  predicted  its  early  repeal  if  passed.  Outside 
Parliament  the  political  economists  were  arrayed 
against  the  measure,  Senior  explaining  that  the 
profits  of  manufacture  were  made  exclusively  in  the 
last  hour;  that  "to  shorten  the  day  would  be  tanta- 
mount to  letting  the  machine  stand  idle." 

In  this  connection  I  cannot  refrain  from  quoting 
a  bit  from  Charles  Dickens  given  by  Brentano: 

"Surely  there  never  was  such  fragile  china-ware  as  that 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  221 

of  which  the  millers  of  Coketown  were  made.  Handle  them 
never  so  lightly,  and  they  fell  to  pieces  with  such  ease  that 
you  might  suspect  them  of  having  been  flawed  before. 
They  were  ruined,  when  they  were  required  to  send  labor- 
ing children  to  school;  they  were  ruined,  when  inspectors 
were  appointed  to  look  into  their  works;  they  were  ruined, 
when  such  inspectors  considered  it  doubtful  whether  they 
were  quite  justified  in  chopping  people  up  with  their  ma- 
chinery; they  were  utterly  undone,  when  it  was  hinted 
that  perhaps  they  need  not  always  make  quite  so  much 
smoke.  Whenever  a  Coketowner  felt  he  was  ill-used,  that 
is  to  say,  whenever  he  was  not  left  entirely  alone,  and  it 
was  proposed  to  hold  him  accountable  for  the  consequences 
of  any  of  his  acts — he  was  sure  to  come  out  with  the  awful 
menace,  that  he  would  "sooner  pitch  his  property  into  the 
Atlantic."  This  had  terrified  the  Home  Secretary  within 
an  inch  of  his  life,  on  several  occasions.  However,  the 
Coketowners  were  so  patriotic,  after  all,  that  they  never 
had  pitched  their  property  into  the  Atlantic  yet,  but,  on 
the  contrary,  had  been  kind  enough  to  take  mighty  good 
care  of  it.  So  there  it  was  in  the  haze  yonder;  and  it  in- 
creased and  multiplied." 

We  see  the  Englishmen  with  a  shorter  working 
day  and  higher  wages  competing  successfully  in  the 
world's  markets  with  his  continental  brethren.  The 
number  of  operators  per  1,000  cotton  spindles  is  17  in 
many  factories  in  Russia  as  against  three  in  factories 
in  England.  A  comparison  between  the  cotton  in- 
dustry in  England  and  Germany  a  few  years  back, 
given  by  Krapotkin  shows  the  following: 

England     Germany 

Hours  of  labor 9  hours     12   hours 

Average  weekly  earnings  of  operatives  ....  16s.  3d     11s.  8d. 

Yards  Woven  per  week  per  operative 706  yds.  466  yds. 

Cost  per  yard  of  cotton .  .0.275d      0.303d. 


222  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

We  cannot  assume  that  because  the  shortening 
of  the  working  day  to  nine  hours  has  not  increased 
the  cost  of  production  in  England  it  would  be  safe 
for  her  to  make  a  general  further  reduction. 

It  is  true  that  the  England  of  to-day  is  somewhat 
in  the  position  of  an  individual  living  on  his  income. 
Her  enormous  excess  of  imports  over  exports  is  really 
payment  in  kind  for  the  interest  due  to  Englishmen 
from  their  foreign  investments,  allowance  of  course 
being  made  for  profits  of  her  great  carrying  trade, 
from  her  security  and  banking  business  with  for- 
eigners, and  the  money  expended  in  England  by 
visitors.  These  notwithstanding,  the  only  way  in 
which  she  at  present  feeds  her  large  population  is  by 
exchanging  manufactures  for  food  stuffs.  A  duty 
on  imports  would  protect  her  home  market,  but  if 
she  lost  her  foreign  market  for  manufactures  she 
would  be  unable  to  feed  her  people.  The  growing 
rivalry  of  Germany  and  America  makes  England's 
position  to-day  much  more  delicate  than  formerly. 
We  are  forced  to  ask  ourselves  whether  England  will 
be  able  to  lead  any  longer  in  reducing  the  hours  of 
labor  in  factories.  In  local  services  of  course  she 
can  act  independently  of  other  nations.  The  miners 
in  England  are  very  properly  enjoying  a  working 
day  shorter  than  the  average,  and  in  a  lew  industrial 
establishments  the  hours  of  labor  have  been  re- 
duced to  eight.  The  testimony  regarding  the  work- 
ings of  the  eight  hour  day  can  hardly  be  said  to  have 
scientific  value,  for  the  double  reason  that  the  tes- 
timony is  not  unanimously  favorable,  and  that  the 
establishments  observing  the  short  day  are  so  few. 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  223 

The  experience  of  England  on  the  whole  leaves  it 
undetermined  whether  men  can  produce  as  much  in 
eight  hours  as  in  nine  hours.  For  the  present  we  are 
forced  to  assume  that  for  certain  races  the  nine  hours 
day  is  the  economic  day.  I  mean  by  the  economic 
day  the  time  in  which  the  laborer  can  produce  in  the 
long  run  the  greatest  amount.  It  is  different  for 
different  races.  A  Spaniard  would  not  wear  himself 
out  in  the  same  number  of  hours  as  an  Englishman 
or  American.  Our  claim  for  a  shorter  working  day 
than  nine  hours  in  America  must  be  based  as  already 
postulated,  principally  on  the  growing  progress 
of  industry.  Any  other  position  is  speculative. 

But  the  workingmaii  is  not  merely  a  machine. 
Is  it  fair,  after  all,  to  approach  the  question  of  hours 
from  the  standpoint  of  the  economic  day,  i.e.,  from 
the  standpoint  of  the  greatest  amount  of  work  that 
can  be  gotten  out  of  the  laborer?  He  is  a  creature 
of  feelings  and  aspirations,  and  it  is  proper  to  ask 
ourselves  whether  the  question  of  the  length  of  the 
labor  day  should  not  be  approached  rather  from  the 
standpoint  of  what  industry  can  afford. 

Turning  to  the  United  States,  a  glance  at  our 
trade  statistics  reveals  the  fact  that  we  are  in  the 
exceptional  position  of  having  an  enormous  amount 
of  food  stuffs  to  spare  for  foreign  markets,  and  at 
the  same  time  sending  abroad  more  manufactured 
products  than  we  import.  A  country  may  be  de- 
veloping its  internal  resources  and  domestic  industry 
so  rapidly  that  it  can  well  afford  to  buy  from  the 
foreigner  more  than  it  sells  him,  and  may  derive  a 
great  advantage  from  acquiring  abroad  things  which 


224  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

promote  industry  at  home.  But  when  it  can  show 
an  enormous  surplus  of  exports  over  imports,  in  ad- 
dition to  great  domestic  prosperity  and  growth, 
surely  its  position  is  advantageous. 

Why  should  we  work  from  three-quarters  of  an 
hour  to  an  hour  longer  than  England  each  day?  As 
a  first  proposition,  would  it  not  be  entirely  safe  for 
us  to  gradually  reduce  the  working  day  from  the 
present  average  of  nearly  ten  hours  to  the  average 
of  nine  hours  which  prevails  in  England?  Next, 
have  we  not  an  instrument  at  hand  in  our  tariff  to 
protect  our  home  market  from  invasion,  if  we  feared 
such  results  from  a  further  gradual  reduction  to 
eight  hours  per  day? 

Surely  with  the  aid  of  the  tariff  we  could  lead  the 
way  in  the  direction  of  lightening  the  task  of  labor. 
Would  it  not  be  such  a  thing  as  the  world  expects 
of  America,  in  line  with  her  history,  her  unselfishness 
and  her  progress?  Would  it  not  be  a  noble  final 
use  to  make  of  a  system  which  has  played  such  a 
notable  part  in  our  economy,  but  the  necessity  for 
the  continuance  of  which  under  present  conditions 
is  rapidly  passing  away  ? 

The  tariff  could  not  insure  the  continuance  of  our 
foreign  trade  in  manufactured  products,  but  are  we 
not  prone  to  overvalue  foreign  trade,  to  regard  the 
country  as  an  individual  who  must  exchange  his 
wares  with  other  traders?  National  boundaries  are, 
at  best,  arbitrary  lines,  and  a  great  country  like  ours 
has  within  it  what  is  equivalent  to  many  lands. 
To  be  Irish,  our  greatest  foreign  trade  is  done  at 
home,  between  the  empires  of  North  and  South  and 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


225 


East  and  West.  And  moreover,  we  are  more  than 
traders  swapping.  We  are  great  producers  our- 
selves, creating  wealth  that  breeds  wealth.  Two- 
thirds  of  our  exports  are  still  agricultural  products, 
the  price  of  which  would  not  be  greatly  affected  by 
the  proposed  reduction  of  hours,  because  such  re- 
duction would  not  apply  to  agriculture. 

If  we  hope  to  take  the  lead  internationally  in  the 
direction  of  shorter  hours,  it  is  important  that  the 
movement  should  be  inaugurated  before  our  ex- 
ports of  manufactures  become  too  large  a  proportion 
of  our  total  exports,  so  that  too  wide  a  field  of  in- 
dustry may  not  be  disturbed  by  cutting  them  down. 
Again,  if  we  conclude  that  the  tariff  will  be  needed 
at  the  start  to  protect  our  home  industries  from 
invasion,  we  have  here  another  reason  for  the  prompt 
inauguration  of  the  movement.  The  logical  basis 
for  our  protective  tariff  is  the  infant  industry  basis. 
When  manufactured  products  can  be  exported  to 
advantage,  and  when  the  formation  of  trusts  breaks 
down  the  competition  within  the  country  which 
has  served  to  keep  down  prices  despite  the  tariff, 
the  citizen  begins  to  think  about  modifying  pro- 
tective duties.  When  once  abandoned,  it  would  be 
asking  too  much  of  the  people  to  restore  the  duties 
for  the  express  purpose  of  lessening  the  hours  of 
labor. 

The  position  taken  in  this  paper  is:  First,  that 
a  gradual  reduction  of  hours  would  not  seriously 
increase  the  cost  of  manufactures,  and  therefore 
would  not  affect  our  exports;  second,  that  even 
if  it  did  increase  cost, with  the  result  of  cutting  down 


226  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

our  exports  of  manufactured  products,  the  game 
would  still  be  worth  the  candle. 

We  have  here  a  force  which  would  make  for  the 
upbuilding  of  American  manhood,  and  it  is  worth 
while  sacrificing  a  portion  of  our  foreign  exports, 
if  this  were  necessary — which  I  question — in  order 
to  accomplish  it.  (Applause.) 

Now  as  to  the  instruments.  We  have  seen  the 
reduction  of  hours  brought  about  thus  far  princi- 
pally by  two  forces,  the  law  and  the  trade  union. 
The  latter  is  expensive,  because  it  implies  strikes. 
The  suggestion  is  made  that  the  desired  end  may 
be  secured  by  concerted  action  on  the  part  of  par- 
ticular trades,  the  employer  conceding  shorter  hours 
in  consideration  of  the  laborer  abandoning  limit- 
ation of  output,  which  most  of  us  believe  is  practiced, 
despite  what  Mr.  O'Connell  told  us  this  morning. 
This  practice  we  all  know  is  exceedingly  harmful  to 
society  and  to  the  laborer  himself.  The  laborer's 
wages  depend  ultimately  upon  what  the  laborer  pro- 
duces. And  if  he  consciously  produces  less,  he 
in  the  long  run  is  consciously  limiting  his  return. 
Mr.  Easley,  our  Secretary,  reports  many  favorable 
responses  to  inquiries  sent  out  in  this  connection. 
Over  60  per  cent,  of  the  replies  from  the  communi- 
cations sent  to  employers  were  favorable.  The 
movement  is  to  be  heartily  commended,  but  I  should 
like  to  point  out  one  or  two  weaknesses  in  the  pro- 
gramme which  it  might  be  well  for  us  to  realize 
now,  so  that  we  may  not  be  discouraged  when  they 
turn  up.  In  1885  there  was  a  general  movement 
in  the  smoking  tobacco  industry  for  a  reduction  of 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


227 


the  working  day  to  eight  hours.  Without  any  actual 
understanding  the  larger  manufacturers  adopted 
the  eight-hour  day,  one  following  the  lead  of  another. 
The  wages  of  the  day  laborer  were  not  reduced,  and 
the  price  of  piece-work  was  increased  one-fifth,  so 
that  as  much  might  be  earned  in  eight  hours  as  for- 
merly in  ten.  But  what  was  the  result?  These 
factories  were  scattered  all  over  the  country.  There 
was  no  strong  local  sentiment,  nor  effective  trade 
union  to  maintain  the  shorter  day.  It  was  impossible 
to  resist  the  temptation  in  a  growing  industry — and 
most  of  the  industries  in  a  growing  country  like  ours 
are  growing  industries — to  work  longer  than  eight 
hours;  to  work  ten  hours  and  even  more.  In  a  short 
while  we  were  back  to  ten  hours,  and  the  net  result 
of  the  movement  was  solely  an  increase  of  wages. 

Again,  supposing  the  eight-hour  day  be  established 
under  the  plan  we  are  considering,  new  employers 
entering  the  field  would  be  inclined  to  violate  the 
rule  of  the  trade,  and  might  do  so  successfully  away 
from  the  centres,  the  increase  of  such  new  coiners 
in  numbers  and  importance  gradually  undermining 
the  system.  The  growth  of  the  printing  business 
in  small  places,  such  as  Madison,  Wis.,  is  to  be 
explained  by  a  similar  desire  to  escape  the  control 
of  trade  unions. 

If  the  working  day  it  is  proposed  to  establish  by 
law  is  shorter  than  the  economic  working  day,  it  is 
going  to  be  most  difficult  to  maintain  it  otherwise 
than  by  law.  To  what  extent  would  the  Sabbath 
be  observed  in  our  big  cities  were  it  not  for  the  law? 
One  man  would  open  his  shop,  then  his  neighbor 


228  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

would  open  his  shop,  and  presently  every  shop 
would  be  open.  The  preponderant  sentiment,  four- 
fifths,  might  be  in  favor  of  Sabbath  observance,  but 
the  other  one-fifth  would  destroy  the  possibility  of  it. 

Still  another  danger  which  we  must  be  prepared 
to  meet.  After  the  laborer  has  come  to  believe 
himself  secure  in  the  enjoyment  of  an  eight-hour  day, 
and  has  ceased  to  regard  it  as  part  of  a  compromise, 
what  is  there  to  prevent  his  returning  to  the  per- 
nicious practice  of  limiting  output? 

We  might  be  compelled,  after  all,  to  fall  back  upon 
the  law.  But  the  plan  presents  commendable  features 
as  an  entering  wedge  for  the  shorter  day,  and  to  the 
minds  of  many  an  appeal  to  the  law  to  fortify  existing 
practice  is  always  more  acceptable  than  looking  to 
it  for  initiative. 

Coming  now  to  the  law  as  an  instrument  of  our 
purpose,  we  turn  naturally  to  the  form  it  has  hereto- 
fore taken  in  America,  namely,  State  legislation.  The 
successful  lead  taken  by  Massachusetts  in  reducing 
hours,  and  its  effect  upon  legislation  elsewhere,  are 
so  well  known  that  they  need  not  be  dwelt  upon. 
This  notwithstanding  it  must  always  remain  risky 
for  a  State  of  the  Union  to  reduce  its  working  day 
in  competitive  industries  below  the  average  working 
day  of  other  States.  To  hope  that  our  legislatures 
can  ever  be  brought  to  display  the  good  sense  of 
acting  in  concert  in  regard  to  this  and  other  important 
legislation  which  ought  to  be  uniform  in  all  the  States, 
is  expecting  too  much  of  them. 

In  non-competitive  industries,  such  -as  the  tele- 
phone, telegraph,  gas  and  electric  lighting,  water 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


2*9 


works,  street  railways,  retail  shops  and  everything 
partaking  of  the  nature  of  local  services,  it  will  be 
seen  at  once  that  the  otate  can  insist  with  safety 
upon  shorter  hours,  independently  of  the  action  of 
other  States.  States  and  municipalities,  in  granting 
franchises,  may  make  the  hours  of  labor  a  condition 
of  the  grant.  It  is  seldom  that  municipalities  make 
a  proper  charge  for  franchises,  and  such  a  provision 
is  not  likely  to  cause  franchises  to  go  a-begging. 

It  is,  of  course,  always  possible  for  the  government, 
local,  State  or  national,  to  give  a  shorter  day  to  its 
own  employees,  and  to  provide  for  it  in  connection 
with  contracts  given  out.  But  unless  this  can  be 
shown  to  operate  strongly  as  a  propaganda,  its  jus- 
tice and  expediency  may  be  questioned.  There  are 
few  countries  in  the  world  where  the  government  em- 
ployee works  as  honestly  as  the  man  in  private  in- 
dustry; he  already  receives  higher  wages,  and  why 
should  he  be  given  shorter  hours? 

Moreover,  if  small  groups  of  men  enjoy  a  working 
day  shorter  than  the  economic  working  day,  they  do 
so  at  the  expense  of  their  fellow- workers.  Social 
justice  requires  that  the  shorter  day  be  secured  for 
the  many.  If  there  be  variation,  let  it  be  in  favor 
of  the  difficult  and  dangerous  trades. 

The  moment  we  propose  to  regulate  hours,  it  is 
immediately  objected  that  men  have  a  right  to  work 
as  many  hours  as  they  like.  Now,  all  social  right 
resolves  itself  into  social  expediency.  The  old  idea 
that  the  individual  has  certain  natural  rights  of  which 
the  State  cannot  deprive  him  is  rapidly  passing  away. 
The  doctrine  of  natural  rights  was  set  up  to  safeguard 


230 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


the  individual  at  a  time  when  tyranny  often  took 
the  form  of  interference  with  the  free  action  of  the 
individual  in  fields  in  which  it  was  best  for  society 
that  his  action  should  be  free.  Instead  of  following 
this  circuitous  path,  we  now  appeal  directly  to  social 
expediency.  Whatever  it  is  expedient  that  the  State 
should  do,  it  has  a  right  to  do.  It  deprives  the 
criminal  of  the  foremost  of  his  so-called  "natural" 
rights,  the  right  to  life.  It  forbids  us  now  to  do 
certain  work  on  Sunday."  If  it  be  socially  expedient 
tnat  it  should  limit  the  hours  of  labor  on  week-days, 
it  has  a  right  to  so  limit  them. 

To  enable  the  Federal  government  to  regulate 
hours  in  the  general  field  of  industry  might  call  for  a 
change  in  the  constitution.  We  know  how  difficult 
this  is  to  bring  about,  but  in  itself  there  is  no  objec- 
tion to  such  a  grant.  The  three  most  liberal  govern- 
ments of  Europe,  viz.:  England,  Switzerland  and 
France,  all  have  this  power.  Switzerland  made 
special  provision  for  it  in  her  constitution.  They 
have  all  used  it  most  conservatively,  and  there  is 
little  ground  for  a  presumption  that  our  Congress 
would  abuse  it.  Such  an  amendment  would  simplify 
the  whole  problem,  the  right  to  regulate  hours  then 
being  in  the  hands  of  the  body  who  could  accommo- 
date the  tariff,  if  necessary,  to  the  change.  Confer- 
ring such  power  on  the  central  government  is  sure 
to  be  objected  to  as  making  for  centralization,  but 
when  we  think  out  many  of  the  problems  of  the  day, 
are  we  not  forced  to  fall  back  on  centralization  for 
their  solution?  Modern  transportation  and  com- 
munication have  lessened  the  sharpness  of  State  lines. 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  331 

Interests  which  were  formerly  local  are  become  na- 
tional. There  are  many  questions  which  we  can  con- 
tinue indefinitely  to  regulate  locally.  Others  have 
entirely  leaped  the  boundaries  of  the  separate  States 
and  can  be  dealt  with  successfully  only  by  the 
central  government.  It  has  been  suggested  that  a 
law  regulating  hours  might  be  optional  for  trades: 
i.  e.,  not  corne  into  force  until  a  majority  of  opera- 
tives in  a  given  trade  had  declared  in  favor  of  it. 

I  want  to  say  in  conclusion,  gentlemen,  that  for 
many  years  I  have  had  this  subject  in  mind,  as  an 
employer  and  a  student  of  economics.  I  have 
ceased  to  speculate  about  it.  Introduced  gradually, 
as  is  proposed,  it  would  be  entirely  safe,  and  the  men 
who  should  carry  such  a  measure  for  lightening  the 
burden  of  labor  in  our  broad  and  rich  land  would 
be  doing  for  the  white  laborer  something  akin  to  that 
which  Lincoln  did  for  the  black  man.  (Applause.) 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  programme  of  the  afternoon 
calls  on  Mr.  George  H.  Barbour,  who  is  connected 
with  the  National  Association  of  Manufacturers,  of 
Detroit,  to  address  us  next. 

HON.  GEORGE  H.  BARBOUR:  Mr.  Chairman  and 
Gentlemen — The  speakers  that  have  preceded  me 
have  given  this  subject  so  much  careful  attention  and 
consideration  that  I  do  not  wish  to  tire  you,  because 
I  feel  if  I  take  too  much  of  your  time  on  this  subject 
you  will  feel  somewhat  exhausted. 

I  have  been  invited  by  your  secretary  to  present 
to  you  my  opinion  of  the  subject  of  the  eight-hour 
proposed  law,  known  as  Bill  No.  3076.  Representing 


232  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

the  chairmanship  of  the  legislative  committee  of  the 
National  Association  of  Manufacturers,  and  being  con- 
nected with  an  institution  that  is  a  large  employer  of 
labor,  I  realize  the  importance  of  this  subject,  and 
have  decided  to  give  you  my  opinion  of  the  same  from 
the  standpoint  of  the  manufacturer. 

This  is  no  new  subject  to  me.  I  a~i  on  record  as  hav- 
ing expressed  myself  freely,  and  in  1897  I  wrote  a 
paper  at  the  request  of  the  Hon.  Charles  H. 
Morse,  then  Commissioner  of  Labor  of  the  State  of 
Michigan,  which  paper  was  in  response  to  one  written 
at  that  time  by  Samuel  Gompers,  President  of  the 
American  Federation  of  Lr,bor,  and  published  in  the 
Fourteenth  Annual  Report  of  the  Bureau  of  Labor 
Statistics  of  Michigan,  1897.  I  may,  during  my  re- 
marks, take  the  liberty  of  referring  to  some  of  the 
arguments  I  presented  at  that  time. 

During  the  month  of  May  of  this  year  I  appeared 
with  other  members  of  the  legislative  committee  of 
the  National  Association  of  Manufacturers,  before 
the  Senate  Committee,  in  Washington,  at  a  hearing 
on  this  eight-hour  bill. 

My  position  in  1897  was  about  the  same  as  it  is 
to-day;  there  is  but  one  position  to  take  on  a  subject 
of  this  kind,  and  that  is  to  endeavor  to  deal  with  both 
sides  impartially  and  justly. 

The  eight-hour  movement  has  been  much  discussed 
and  has  received  a  great  deal  of  attention  during  the 
past  six  years  or  more.  I  do  not  favor  long  hours 
of  labor  if  they  can  be  shortened  in  any  way  which 
will  not  prove  to  the  disadvantage  of  all  interested 
parties;  but  before  adopting  any  such  measure,  we 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFEREXCE. 


233 


must  carefully  consider  the  effects.  In  these  pros- 
perous times  is  it  not  of  the  greatest  importance  that 
we  do  nothing  to  disturb  or  affect  this  universal 
prosperity  ? 

Changing  the  hours  of  labor  from  ten  to  eight  a 
day  means  a  twenty  per  cent,  reduction  in  the  manu- 
factured product.  Take  a  manufacturing  institution 
that  is  running  on  the  basis  of  ten  hours  a  day,  to 
its  fullest  capacity,  with  a  demand  for  its  entire 
product  on  this  basis,  and  with  this  reduction  it  has 
to  do  one  of  two  things;  it  must  either  increase  its 
capacity  twenty  per  cent,  and  increase  its  laboring 
force  twenty  per  cent.,  which  means  additional  ex- 
pense for  its  manufactured  product,  or  else  it  must 
curtail  its  production.  I  feel  that  I  am  taking  sides 
with  labor  as  much  as  I  can  possibly  be  defending  the 
manufacturer,  when  I  say  that  a  condition  such  as 
above  referred  to  would  mean  that  the  manufacturer 
would  have  to  get  increased  prices  for  his  product  or 
else  he  would  have  to  decrease  the  wages  paid  to 
labor  to  produce  it.  I  am  one  who  favors  good  wages 
to  the  laborer  at  all  times,  believing  that  the  manu- 
facturer should  give  to  labor  all  the  advantages  he 
possibly  can,  especially  when  there  is  a  condition  of 
prosperity. 

If  the  government  should  pass  this  eight-hour  bill, 
all  concerns  contracting  with  the  government  for  any 
work  or  supplies  of  any  kind  would  come  under  its 
provisions;  suppose  a  manufacturer  working  on  the 
eight-hour  basis  has  a  contract  from  the  government 
for  certain  machinery,  and  some  of  the  articles  en- 
tering into  the  construction  of  the  same — it  may  be 


234  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

bolts,  lubricators,  or  a  hundred  different  things— 
were  made  on  the  outside  by  concerns  running  on  the 
ten-hour  basis.  What  would  be  the  condition? 
Sufficient  pressure  would  be  brought  to  bear  upon 
the  government  so  that  it  might  refuse  the  product 
of  the  manufacturer  who  would,  in  his  own  institu- 
tion, be  working  on  the  eight-hour  basis,  but  who  was 
compelled  to  purchase  some  article  or  articles  made 
by  a  concern  working  on  the  ten-hour  basis,  and  here 
would  be  a  very  serious  condition,  and  one  which 
would  affect  many  people. 

Let  me  say  right  here  I  would  never  oppose  the 
eight-hour  bill  if  the  law  would  become  universal, 
but  I  do  oppose  it  if  it  is  to  be  a  sectional  law,  or  is 
adopted  by  some  States  and  not  by  all,  because  it 
places  the  manufacturer  at  a  great  disadvantage, 
and  is  certain  to  also  affect  the  employee. 

The  manufacturing  interest  of  this  country  is  one 
of  its  most  important  factors;  it  is  growing,  it  is 
becoming  more  important ;  it  is  giving  employment  to 
labor;  it  is  daily  increasing  in  importance,  and  I 
say  to  you  that  wise  judgment  should  prevail  and 
nothing  should  be  done  without  the  most  careful  con- 
sideration of  the  results  involved,  that  would  have 
a  tendency  to  revolutionize  basic  conditions  which 
have  required  a  century  of  careful  study  to  formulate. 

I  am  not  considering  this  subject  solely  from  the 
interests  of  the  manufacturer,  because  I  believe  the 
manufacturer  and  his  employees  should  at  all  times 
work  in  perfect  harmony,  as  their  interests  are  un- 
doubtedly mutual.  I  should,  however,  like  to  see  a 
different  condition  existing  between  capital  and  labor 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE  235 

than  at  present.  I  want  capital  to  deal  rightly  with 
labor,  and  I  want  labor  to  deal  justly  with  capital, 
or  those  who  employ  it.  The  business  men  of  this 
country  must  use  extra  efforts  to  bring  about  closer 
relations  between  capital  and  labor.  I  sometimes 
think  that  labor  does  not  fully  realize  the  fact  that 
in  this  country  some  men  will  have  greater  wealth 
than  others,  and  it  seems  to  consider  this  a  great  in- 
justice, but  I  never  expect  to  see  the  time  when  there 
will  be  a  more  equal  division  of  money  than  exists  to-day. 

In  this  I  am  reminded  of  an  incident  that  occurred 
in  connection  with  Mr.  George  Vanderbilt  at  the  time 
he  was  building  his  beautiful  home  and  expending  an 
immense  amount  of  money  in  North  Carolina.  He 
was  at  that  time  employing  laborers,  artists,  mechan- 
ics and  all  classes  of  workmen.  Walking  into  the 
grounds  one  morning  he  met  one  of  the  laborers  who 
did  not  know  him,  never  having  met  him,  and  who 
said  to  him:  "Does  it  not  seem  wrong  that  this 
great  amount  of  wealth  should  belong  to  one  man? 
It  should  be  divided."  Mr.  Vanderbilt  said  to  the 
man:  "How  much  do  you  think  your  share  would 
be,  providing  it  was  divided  with  the  laboring  classes 
of  the  United  States?"  The  answer  was:  "I  think 
about  five  dollars."  Mr.  Vanderbilt  put  his  hand  in 
his  pocket  and  handed  the  man  five  dollars,  saying: 
"There  is  your  share."  The  incident  was  related  by 
the  man  at  the  hotel  that  evening,  and  he  said  that 
he  had  his  share  of  the  wealth  of  the  country. 

But  to  come  back  to  the  direct  subject,  the  eight- 
hour  law.  Will  you  allow  me  to  read  from  my  paper 
published  in  1897?  If  the  eight-hour  law  could  be- 


236  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

come  a  universal  one,  and  if  all  the  manufacturers  in 
the  United  States  were  working  on  the  eight-hour 
basis,  I  would  not  oppose  it.  But  if  this  were  the  case , 
some  provision  would  have  to  be  made  to  increase 
the  production.  Let  us  consider  the  condition  of  to- 
day. Working  on  the  ten-hour  basis,  many  manu- 
facturers are  unable  to  produce  sufficient  of  their 
products  to  meet  the  demands.  I  cite  the  pig  iron 
product  and  the  sheet  iron  product,  and  many  articles 
produced  from  iron  and  steel.  The  shortage  of  the 
coke  product  is  becoming  most  serious,  and  is  at  the 
present  time  somewhat  alarming,  as  the  late  coal 
strike  has  compelled  many  people  to  substitute  coke 
for  that  fuel,  at  extravagant  prices,  and  the  laborer 
has  felt  this  seriously. 

When  a  manufacturer  has  to  compete  with  another 
in  the  same  line,  one  working  on  the  ten-hour  basis 
and  the  other  on  the  eight-hour  basis^  he  certainly 
would  be  at  a  great  disadvantage,  and  is  there  any 
one  who  can  stand  up  and  argue  that  with  this 
twenty  per  cent,  difference  the  manufacturers  work- 
ing eight  hours  could  possibly  compete  with  the  one 
working  ten? 

I  admit  that  shortening  the  hours  of  labor  would 
in  many  instances  allow  the  employee  to  spend  more 
time  with  his  family,  and  have  an  additional  amount 
of  recreation;  but  is  it  worth  the  attempt  to  have 
this  bill  become  a  law,  even  nationally,  with  the 
disadvantages  which  I  have  explained,  which  would 
certainly  follow  with  government  contracts,  and 
which,  in  my  opinion,  are  sure  to  reach  the  pockets  of 
the  laborers? 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  237 

The  laborer  would  be  affected  if  the  manufacturers' 
product  were  reduced  twenty  per  cent.,  and  it  means 
that  the  expense  of  production  would  be  increased 
at  least  a  certain  percentage.  Who  is  to  pay  for  the 
increased  prices  that  would  follow  increased  cost  of 
production?  The  consumer,  of  course,  and  labor  is 
a  large  consumer  of  all  products,  so  where  is  it  bene- 
fited ?  If  the  manufacturer,  by  reducing  the  hours  of 
labor,  has  to  curtail  his  production  and  thereby  in- 
crease the  prices,  the  laboring  man  has  got  to  stand 
his  share.  So  I  repeat,  in  discussing  this  question, 
I  am  taking  the  side  of  the  laboring  man  as  much  as 
I  am  considering  the  manufacturer. 

Should  this  eight-hour  bill  pass  the  Senate  (I  admit 
for  the  time  it  would  only  affect  government  em- 
ployees and  those  having  contracts  with  the  govern- 
ment), it  would  establish  a  precedent  which  is  liable 
to  affect  State  legislation.  One  State  might  pass  an 
eight-hour  law,  another  State  continue  under  the  ten- 
hour  law,  and  here  comes  the  competition  between 
manufacturers  in  the  same  line  of  business,  one  work- 
ing on  the  eight-hour  and  the  other  on  the  ten-hour 
basis. 

I  cannot  but  feel  that  the  eight-hour  bill,  if  passed 
in  its  present  form,  would  injure  instead  of  protect 
the  laboring  classes.  A  laboring  man  earning  on  the 
basis  of  25  cents  per  hour,  working  ten  hours  a  day 
makes  $2.50;  if  brought  down  to  eight  hours  a  day, 
is  there  any  one  who  would  believe  that  he  would  be 
as  well  satisfied  to  receive  one-fifth  less  wages,  earning 
only  $2.00  instead  of  $2.50?  Do  you  not  agree  with 
me  that  a  manufacturer  changing  from  the  ten-hour 


238  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

basis  to  the  eight-hour  would  have  to  reduce  the 
wages  of  his  employees  in  proportion? 

In  considering  this  subject  carefully,  as  I  have  for 
several  years  past,  I  am  led  to  believe  that  the  present 
bill  calling  for  eight  hours,  if  passed,  would  be  what 
I  term  class  legislation,  as  the  bill  itself  (clause 
21-24)  exempts  railroads  and  transportation  com- 
panies. The  hours  of  labor  in  this  country  have 
never  reached  what  they  are  in  foreign  countries, 
and  I  hope  they  never  will.  I  was  asked  by  the 
chairman  of  the  committee  of  the  Senate  this  ques- 
tion: "Do  you  not  think  that  it  is  possible  for  a 
manufacturer  to  secure  sufficient  labor,  so  that  if  he 
were  extraordinarily  busy  and  his  institution  was 
arranged  for  it,  he  could  make  three  shifts  of  eight 
hours  each?"  My  answer  was:  "That  would  be  an 
impossibility  at  the  present  time."  When  there  was 
a  lack  of  business,  and  some  particular  manufacturer 
was  crowded  in  his  line,  and  labor  was  a  drug  on  the 
market,  he  possibly  might  accomplish  that,  but  when 
business  is  as  it  is  to-day,  it  would  be  an  impossi- 
bility, because  all  labor  is  well  employed,  and  I  am 
told  by  men  connected  with  the  largest  institutions 
of  this  country  working  twenty-four  hours,  that  it 
is  almost  impossible  to  get  two  shifts.  So,  what  are 
we  to  do  with  a  condition  like  this,  when  the  capac- 
ity of  the  manufacturer  is  driven  to  its  utmost  to 
meet  the  requirements  of  the  trade,  and  he  is  hardly 
able  to  get  the  labor  that  he  requires,  which  is  our  pres- 
ent condition  ?  I  like  to  see  labor  employed.  It  is  a 
much  more  satisfactory  and  beneficial  condition  to  have 
labor  employed  than  to  have  it  seeking  employment. 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  239 

I  am  one  who  believes  it  is  advisable  sometimes 
to  "let  well  enough  alone."  Not  that  I  do  not  be- 
lieve in  conditions  being  improved,  but  we  do  not 
want  to  do  radical  things;  we  do  not  want  to  take 
chances  of  disturbing  a  condition  that  is  as  satisfac- 
tory as  the  present  one,  by  passing  an  eight-hour  law 
or  doing  anything  else  that  will  injure  the  present 
conditions. 

I  could  give  you  a  number  of  reasons  why  I  think 
the  eight-hour  law,  unless  it  became  universal — 
don't  make  any  mistake  in  this  statement  of  mine — 
would  be  disastrous  to  not  only  the  manufacturer, 
but  to  the  laborer  as  well. 

I  have  endeavored  within  the  brief  time  allotted  to 
me  to  give  you  some  reasons  why  both  sides  will  be 
seriously  affected.  If  time  permitted,  I  would  give 
still  more.  That  this  subject  may  have  the  benefit 
of  anything  I  have  ever  said  regarding  it,  I  would 
like  to  submit,  with  what  I  present  at  this  time,  the 
paper  which  I  wrote  in  1897,  to  which  I  have  pre- 
viously referred,  as  well  also  as  the  paper  which  I 
submitted  to  the  Senate  committee  at  its  hearing  in 
May. 

There  are  two  words  in  the  English  language  that 
carry  a  great  deal  of  weight  with  them — they  are 
"supply"  and  "demand."  We  are  benefited  or  in- 
jured, as  the  case  may  be,  by  the  conditions  of  supply 
and  demand.  When  there  is  a  demand,  as  exists  to- 
day, for  the  entire  products  of  the  manufacturing  in- 
stitiutions  of  this  country,  we  certainly  must  be  in  a 
very  satisfactory  condition;  if  it  requires,  as  it  does, 
the  products  of  the  manufacturers  working  ten  hours 


240 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


a  day — and  I  am  free  to  say  if  certain  manufactured 
products  were  increased  twenty-five  or  fifty  per  cent, 
their  entire  output  would  be  called  for — is  it  wise 
and  is  it  to  the  advantage  of  labor  to  insist  upon  this 
eight-hour  law?  When  there  is  a  good  supply  and 
a  large  demand,  I  will  guarantee  prosperous  times 
and  all  classes  of  labor  are  sure  to  feel  the  good  effects 
of  the  same. 

Now,  for  the  sake  of  the  argument,  I  am  not  sure 
but  a  nine-hour  law  might  be  brought  about  to  the 
satisfaction  of  both  the  manufacturer  and  the  laborer, 
providing  some  abuses  could  be  remedied.  Some 
men  are  always  prompt  and  ready  to  commence  work 
at  the  blow  of  the  whistle,  while  others  will  often  be, 
say,  five  to  ten  minutes  late,  and  they  will  take  an 
additional  amount  of  time  before  they  get  to  work. 
Again,  during  the  morning  hours,  they  stop  to  take 
lunch  and  use  up  ten  minutes  time  at  least ;  after  this 
the  noon  hour  approaches ;  they  are  anxious  to  hear  the 
whistle  blow,  and  may  stop  work  ten  minutes  before 
noon  so  that  they  can  wash ;  and  a  similar  condition 
of  things  goes  on  in  the  afternoon.  Now,  you  can 
readily  see  if  we  only  calculate  on  the  time  lost  in  their 
morning's  work  we  have  fifteen  to  twenty  minutes 
time  against  them,  and  imagine  if  you  can  with  a  large 
force  of  employees  what  this  means  to  the  employer. 
The  machinery  is  running  all  the  time,  and  the  em- 
ployer has  a  right  to  expect  an  honest  day's  work, 
but  such  things  as  I  have  mentioned  creep  in.  If 
these  objectionable  conditions  could  be  removed,  I 
believe  I  might  personally  favor  nine  hours  as  a  day's 
work.  I  think  this  could  be  accomplished  by  both 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  241 

the  employer  and  the  employee  giving  due  considera- 
tion to  each  other's  rights,  and  if  the  employee  would 
give  nine  hours  honest  work,  I  do  not  hesitate  to  say 
I  believe  it  would  compensate  the  manufacturer  for 
the  additional  hour  granted,  but  it  certainly  would 
have  to  come  about  in  this  way,  if  equal  justice  is  to 
be  shared  between  both  parties  interested. 

This  on  the  face  of  it  means  a  ten  per  cent,  re- 
duction, but  I  believe  if  the  manufacturer  will  do  his 
part  and  the  laborer  will  do  his  part,  and  be  honest  and 
endeavor  to  make  up  during  the  nine  hours  of  the 
day  the  extra  hour  given  him,  wh'ch  means  he 
would  have  to  gain  about  six  minutes  to  each  hour;  in 
other  words,  by  working  a  little  harder  during  the 
nine  hours,  paying  a  little  closer  attention  to  his  work, 
he  would  be  able  to  turn  out  the  same  amount  of 
work  that  he  did  in  the  ten  hours — this  would  work 
to  the  satisfaction  of  all  interested. 

Of  course  under  these  conditions  the  manufacturer 
would  have  to  pay  for  the  nine  hours  work  the 
same  wages  that  he  formerly  paid  for  the  ten.  I 
do  not  say  for  a  certainty  this  would  be  accomplished , 
but  I  believe  it  is  the  wisest  thing  to  consider.  The 
manufacturer  might  be  willing  to  concede  this, 
providing  his  employees  would  accomplish  in  the 
nine  hours  what  they  are  doing  now  in  ten.  This 
may  be  a  solution  of  the  problem.  I  am  satisfied 
that  an  eight-hour  law  at  this  time,  unless  it  be 
universal,  will  produce  serious  results  to  both  the  em- 
ployer and  the  employee.  Do  not  let  us  do  any- 
thing that  will  place  a  check  upon  the  present  con- 
dition of  prosperity.  I  would  like  to  see  every 


242 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


laboring  man  in  this  country  the  possessor  of  a  nice 
home,  comfortably  furnished,  grounds  beautified, 
but  I  never  expect  to  see  this.  I  am  glad  to  know, 
however,  that  we  have  many  attractive  homes 
owned  by  the  laboring  classes  of  to-day,  and  I  believe 
this  condition  can  be  shown  in  no  other  country. 
And  I  thank  God  I  can  go  through  New  England, 
I  can  go  through  the  West,  or  the  Northwest,  among 
the  homes  of  the  laboring  people,  and  find  there  some 
sunshine  and  some  happiness. 

If  I  could  in  any  way,  by  working  days,  nights 
or  Sundays,  improve  the  condition  of  the  laboring 
man,  I  would  most  cheerfully  give  the  time;  but 
I  hesitate.  I  am  afraid  the  leaders  of  the  organ- 
ization would  not  agree  with  me,  and  that  the  labor 
that  I  might  devote  to  the  subject  would  prove  of 
no  avail.  Every  employer  of  labor  should  feel 
interested  in  those  who  assist  in  making  his  business 
a  success;  they  are  entitled  to  a  fair  compensation 
for  the  services  rendered  by  them.  No  one  feels 
more  interested  in,  or  is  willing  to  do  more  to  im- 
prove the  condition  of  the  laborer  than  I  am.  If 
anything  can  be  done  to  harmonize  all  differences 
and  cement  the  s  mutual  interests  of  employer  and 
employee  it  should  be  done,  and  no  one  is  more 
interested  in  bringing  this  about  than  I. 

I  consider  the  subject  of  the  eight-hour  bill  one 
of  most  vital  importance,  and  is  it  not  entirely  a 
business  proposition?  And  it  should  not  be  de- 
cided without  the  most  careful  consideration  and 
sufficient  time  given  to  it  to  understand  what  it 
really  means.  Let  us  be  just,  man  to  man,  if  we 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


243 


would  succeed,  and  success  is  what  we  would  strive 
for.  Do  not  allow  any  legislation  which  will  prove 
to  the  disadvantage  of  either  the  employer  or  the 
employee.  We  should  only  enact  such  laws  as 
will  benefit  both.  Let  us  throw  aside  petty  strife 
and  give  this  subject  earnest  and  careful  deliber- 
ation, endeavoring  to  reach  such  conclusions  as 
will  prove  of  the  greatest  benefit  alike  to  all  interested. 
The  manufacturer  is  the  greatest  employer  of  labor, 
and  is,  therefore,  vitally  interested  in  this  question. 
If  a  mistake  is  made,  both  parties  must  suffer, 
as  it  is  important  that  this  question  of  an  eight 
hour  law  should  be  given  the  most  careful  thought, 
and  that  only  such  legislation  may  be  enacted  as 
will  fully  protect  and  advance  the  interests  of  both. 
(Applause.) 
Adjourned. 

The  opening  session  of  the  third  day's  meeting 
was  called  to  order  promptly  at  10:30  by  Secretary 
Ralph  M.  Easley,  in  the  absence  of  Chairman 
Hanna,  and  he  then  read  the  following  extract 
from  a  letter  received  from  Mr.  Fred  A.  Underwood, 
President  of  the  Erie  Railroad  Company. 

"Arbitration  to  be  such  must  first  be  carried  on 
by  men  who  have  some  knowledge  of  the  subject 
and  are  not  in  any  way  interested.  The  difficulty 
with  the  arbitrations  we  have  thus  far  undertaken 
has  been  that  the  labor  organizations  have  insisted 
upon  having  their  partisans  upon  the  board.  Our 
experience  with  them  has  been  that  they  have,  in 
no  instance,  been  able  to  rise  above  a  state  of  feeling 


244  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

which  leads  them  to  think  that  they  must  have  a 
'  friend  on  the  jury.'  An  example  of  this  was  recently 
had  in  this  city,  where  a  body  of  skilled  artisans 
was  offered  arbitration.  They  insisted  on  putting 
in  the  head  of  their  order,  whose  plan  was  to  secure 
for  them  what  they  asked.  All  efforts  to  induce 
them  to  choose  a  competent,  disinterested  arbitrator 
were  futile.  The  other  party  to  the  controversy 
named  a  man  who  had  no  direct  interest  in  either 
side,  but  was  fully  competent. 

"When  both  parties  can  agree  on  a  competent, 
disinterested  Board  of  Arbitration,  whose  members, 
aside  from  their  technical  knowledge  of  the  sub- 
ject to  be  arbitrated,  shall  have  independence  of 
character,  then  we  have  gone  a  long  way  towards 
solving  the  differences  between  labor  and  capital. 
In  furtherance  of  this  a  permanent  Board  of  Arbi- 
tration might  be  instituted,  something  on  the  order 
of  the  National  Civic  Federation.  For  example: 
a  board  of  mechanical  engineers,  to  consider  the 
differences  between  mechanics,  also  other  technical 
boards,  whose  knowledge  would  render  them  effi- 
cient in  their  various  specialties. 

"The  principle  of  competent  arbitration  is  sound, 
and  we  will  have  to  enter  upon  the  missionary  work 
of  converting  owners  and  managers  to  a  sense  of 
fairness.  They  must  drop  the  personal  and  deal 
with  their  men  as  they  are,  and  not  as  they  think 
they  should  be.  No  employer's  personal  opinion 
of  labor  organizations  or  his  personal  inclinations  in 
the  matter  of  dealing  with  them  are  worth  anything 
in  business.  He  must  recognize  the  fact  that  they 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


245 


are  here  and  are  a  factor.  Prejudices  against  them 
on  the  part  of  employers  and  managers  must  be 
sunken.  The  existing  conditions  must  be  dealt 
with  in  the  same  manner  as  are  climatic  disturb- 
ances or  others  of  an  impersonal  nature. 

"The  prejudice  that  the  laboring  class  has  against 
capital  must  be  recognized  and  dealt  with  as  a 
human  attribute.  Given  a  man  with  education 
and  the  power  of  money,  he  must  recognize  the  state 
of  mind  of  the  man  who  has  neither,  and  he  must 
go  half  way,  and  more  at  times,  in  consequence  of 
the  mental  state  of  the  other. 

"The  employee  must  be  educated  to  realize  the 
fact  that  the  employer  is  his  friend;  that  their  inter- 
ests are  common,  and  the  idea  that  his  employer 
seeks  to  take  petty  advantage  of  him  must  be  erad- 
icated. These  prejudices  have  been  created  by 
employers,  dating  back  to  the  days  of  small  enter- 
prises, where  the  owner  exercised  a  personal  super- 
vision over  every  detail  and  was  not  above  taking 
petty  advantages.  While  the  personal  method 
of  conducting  business  has  changed,  owing  to  the 
great  enlargement  which  has  taken  place  in  every 
branch  of  industry,  the  prejudices  which  were  born 
of  past  injustice  are  yet  present." 

Mr.  Easley  continued  as  follows:  The  Civic  Fed- 
eration recently  sent  out  a  letter  to  the  large  manu- 
facturers of  the  country  containing  a  number  of 
questions.  This  list  of  manufacturers  contained 
none  of  less  capital  than  $500,000.  One  of  the 
questions  in  that  circular  was :  ' '  Do  you  regard  it  a 
practical  proposition  to  gradually  reduce  hours  by 


246  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

voluntary  uniform  agreement  through  a  given 
industry,  providing  the  employees  agree  to  abandon 
any  arbitrary  restriction  upon  output?" 

With  that  question  went  this  explanation :  ' '  On 
the  question  of  shorter  hours  it  is  clear  that  agitation 
is  increasing,  and  where  not  settled  by  voluntary 
agreement  or  through  a  strike  takes  the  form  of  effort 
for  legislative  enactment.  An  eight- hour  bill  is 
now  before  Congress  supported  by  the  labor  organ- 
izations and  opposed  by  the  employers,  especially 
by  the  National  Association  of  Manufacturers. 
Judge  McCammon,  representing  large  ship  builders, 
in  his  address  before  the  Congressional  Committee, 
said: 

.  .  .  In  presenting  the  final  argument  on  be- 
half of  certain  companies  and  individuals,  it  seems 
incumbent  upon  me  to  disclaim  any  opposition 
either  to  the  theory  of  those  who  advocate  an 
eight-hour  system  or  to  the  practical  application 
of  an  eight-hour  system  where  the  consent  of  various 
trades  and  manufacturers  which  produce  the  same 
or  similar  articles  is  unanimous.  This  consent  must 
of  necessity  be  practically  unanimous  or  universal, 
else  the  advantage  must  be  with  the  establishment 
which  employs  men  to  work  ten  or  twelve  hours  in 
producing  substantially  the  same  product  as  those 
working  shorter  hours.  Our  opposition  is  to  no 
theory,  to  no  principle,  but  directed  to  the  vicious 
attempt  to  compel  a  contractor  to  be  placed  at  a 
disadvantage  in  connection  with  producers  in  the 
same  line  of  business  if  the  bill  under  discussion 
should  become  a  law." 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  347 

The  plan  of  securing  a  shorter  day  through  vol- 
untary agreements  by  trades  is  one  to  which  our 
committee  has  given  considerable  attention.  In- 
vestigation shows  that  a  great  many  of  the  large 
employers  of  the  country  would  not  oppose  a  scheme 
of  that  kind.  The  employer  who  manufactures  hats 
cares  nothing  about  the  hours  adopted  by  the  em- 
ployer who  manufactures  sewing  machines  or  vice 
versa.  He  is  concerned  only  about  his  competitors 
who  manufacture  hats.  As  a  business  proposition 
he  probably  would  not  object  to  a  nine  hour  or  even 
an  eight  hour  day  provided  it  came  gradually  and 
all  of  his  competitors  were  on  the  same  basis,  and 
provided  further  the  industry  was  not  one  where  an 
increase  in  cost  of  production  would  destroy  it 
through  substitution  by  the  public  of  another 
commodity,  or  where  international  competition  would 
interfere.  When  the  clothing  cutters  of  the  United 
States  threatened  last  winter  to  strike  in  thirty 
days,  unless  granted  a  reduction  from  nine  and  a 
half  to  eight  hours  per  day,  Marcus  M.  Marks,  the 
President  of  the  Wholesale  Clothing  Manufacturers' 
Association,  said:  "Speaking  for  myself,  I  would 
rather  seethe  clothing  business  of  this  country  upon  an 
eight  hour  than  upon  a  nine  and  a  half  hour  basis, 
if  it  could  be  brought  about  gradually  and  uniformly 
throughout  the  trade,  but  a  proposition  to  go  to 
eight  hours  in  thirty  days  is  revolutionary  and  could 
not  be  considered  for  a  moment.  In  the  first  place 
it  would  call  for  an  increased  number  of  cutters, 
and  they  could  not  be  obtained,  for  we  can  get  barely 
enough  for  our  business  now.  But,  if  we  had  the 


248  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

increased  number  we  would  have  no  room  for  them 
in  our  factories  as  now  arranged.  We  also  have 
contracts  for  future  delivery  which  are  based  on 
the  nine  and  one-half  hour  schedule.  There  must 
be  plenty  of  time  to  adjust  to  the  new  condition." 

I  will  not  attempt  an  argument  here  either  for 
or  against  a  shorter  working  day,  but  I  have  been 
surprised  to  find  the  growing  sentiment  among  large 
employers  in  favor  of  a  shorter  working  day,  pro- 
vided, of  course,  it  would  be  brought  about  in  a 
business-like  way.  The  superintendent  of  one  of 
the  largest  plants  in  this  country  recently  stated 
that  while  running  on  a  ten-hour  basis  they  found 
it  necessary  to  work  three  hours  and  twenty  min- 
utes overtime.  He  said  he  soon  felt  it  was  a  mis- 
take, as  common  experience  in  manufacturing  plants 
demonstrates  the  fact  that  after  a  certain  point  in 
the  working  day,  no  appreciable  gain  in  either  the 
quantity  or  quality  of  the  product  is  made  by  increas- 
ing the  duration  of  work.  He  found  the  men  were 
all  fagged  out  when  they  came  back  the  next  mprn- 
ing.  He  then  cut  the  working  day  to  nine  hours, 
and  was  better  satisfied  with  both  the  quality  and 
quantity  of  the  product. 

As  the  employees  want  a  shorter  working  day 
and  the  employers  want  an  unrestricted  output, 
would  it  not  be  a  practical  proposition  to  couple  the 
two  together,  making  one  a  quid  pro  quo  of  the  other? 
In  fact  that  idea  was  incorporated  in  the  agreement 
made  in  1900  between  the  National  Metal  Trades 
Association  and  the  International  Association  of 
Machinists. 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  249 

There  were  nine  hundred  and  twenty  answers  to 
this  question,  six  hundred  and  seven  of  which  said 
"yes"  to  the  proposition,  of  course  with  the  idea 
that  any  restriction  existing  should  be  given  up. 
The  idea  of  combining  those  two  principles  in  one 
is  the  idea  of  the  basis  of  the  contract  made  between 
the  National  Metal  Trades  Association,  an  organiza- 
tion of  some  five  hundred  manufacturers,  and  the 
International  Association  of  Machinists,  some  year 
and  a  half  ago.  While  that  contract  was  afterwards 
broken,  it  did  not  go  to  pieces  on  account  of  that 
principle.  The  same  .idea  is  contained  in  the  con- 
tracts between  the  International  Typographical 
Union  and  the  American  Publishers'  Association, 
and  also  with  the  Printing  Pressmen's  organization 
and  the  Publishers'  Association. 

CHAIRMAN:  Will  Mr.  Marcus  M.  Marks,  president 
of  the  National  Association  of  Clothing  Manufac- 
turers, kindly  address  us? 

MR.  MARCUS  M.  MARKS:  As  manufacturing  estab- 
lishments grow  and  grow  and  finally  organize  ana 
then  become  parts  of  other  organizations,  the  direct 
personal  touch  between  employer  and  employees  is 
gradually  diminished.  Misunderstandings  are  more 
likely  to  arise  when  the  personal  element  is  removed. 
The  only  solution  of  the  labor  problem  then  lies  in 
the  "round  table."  The  horns  of  the  labor  leader 
and  the  hoofs  of  the  trust  magnate  soon  disappear 
when  labor  and  capital  meet  in  a  friendly  discussion 
of  the  situation.  Each  one  should  try  to  put  himself 
in  the  place  of  the  other.  It  is  usually  discovered 


250  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

after  threshing  out  the  situation  that  they  are  not  so 
far  apart  as  had  been  expected,  on  the  various  ques- 
tions discussed. 

Let  me  speak  from  the  standpoint  of  the  employer. 
For  fifteen  years,  since  I  first  began  to  study  the 
labor  problem  practically,  I  have  heard  with  a  thou- 
sand variations  the  same  old  song,  "the  workman 
needs  shorter  hours,"  but  not  once  have  I  heard 
any  one  say  the  employer  needs  shorter  hours. 
Strange,  when  the  employer  admittedly  bears  the 
greater  burden,  the  greater  care  and  strain!  His  re- 
sponsibility continues  during  the  entire  time  his  men 
are  actually  at  work,  particularly  in  the  average  sized 
concern,  where  there  is  close  touch  between  the  em- 
ployer and  employed. 

He  leaves  his  home  early  in  the  morning,  often 
without  seeing  his  family ;  is  at  high  pressure  all  day ; 
the  telephone,  the  telegraph  and  the  stenographer 
make  the  strain  of  the  day  greater  than  heretofore 
by  condensing  more  brain  effort  into  each  hour.  In 
the  evening  he  comes  home  to  his  wife  with  the  rem- 
nants of  a  tired  brain ;  his  children  have  retired  and 
his  refuge  is  sleep.  Is  he  doing  business  to  live  or 
living  for  his  business? 

I  plead  for  shorter  hours  for  the  employer;  time 
to  breathe,  to  think,  to  do  some  good  in  the  world. 
Why,  before  the  average  employer  has  saved  a  com- 
petence he  is  a  car  horse,  happy  only  when  the  bell 
rings  to  start  him  off  to  trot  on  the  road  he  is  so  used 
to.  All  the  higher  desires,  the  better  tastes,  have 
frequently  gone  to  decay  through  disuse  during  the 
years  of  his  entire  absorption  in  the  game  of  business. 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  351 

Liberal-minded  as  the  employer  may  be,  an  argu- 
ment regarding  the  welfare  of  his  workmen  will  not 
affect  him  as  quickly  or  touch  him  as  deeply  as  an 
argument  showing  that  his  own  welfare  is  concerned. 
For  that  reason,  in  my  desire  to  help  bring  about  the 
gradual  shortening  of  the  working  day,  I  appeal  to 
employers  for  their  own  sakes. 

The  change  must  be  worked  gradually,  as  conditions 
warrant,  by  agreement  between  employers  in  various 
trades  throughout  the  country,  and  along  the  lines 
of  least  resistance. 

For  the  employers  and  for  the  employees  a  shorter 
work-day  would  bring  great  advantages,  the  principal 
one  being  time  for  education  for  the  higher  life,  which 
will  tend  to  raise  our  standard  of  citizenship  and 
better  the  chances  of  industrial  peace. 

I  hope  to  see  the  time  when  employers  will  take 
the  initiative  in  movements  to  shorten  the  working 
hours.  (Applause.) 

There  is  an  intimate  connection  between  shorter 
hours,  unrestricted  output,  and  trade  agreement.  I 
will  give  you  a  practical  illustration. 

Several  thousand  workmen  in  a  branch  of  the  iron 
trade  wanted  to  cut  their  day  from  ten  to  eight  hours. 
They  promised  to  do  their  best  and  to  make  it  to  the 
interest  of  their  employer  to  inaugurate  the  change. 
The  employer  agreed,  and  the  result  has  been  that 
with  an  eight-hour  day,  working  on  the  piece  plan  as 
before,  the  workmen  earn  twenty-eight  per  cent,  more 
than  they  did  under  the  ten- hour  system.  There  are 
two  reasons  for  this  increase.  First,  a  man  can  do 
more  per  hour  in  an  eight-hour  day  than  in  a  ten- 


252  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

hour  day;  and  second,  the  existing  restrictions  were 
removed  when  the  day  was  shortened. 

A  most  flagrant  case  of  restriction  was  recently 
brought  to  my  attention.  Men  in  an  important  part 
of  a  large  manufacturing  plant  were  earning  $4  a 
day  on  the  piece  plan.  No  one  produced  more  or  less 
than  that  amount  daily.  For  some  reason  they 
struck,  and  were  replaced  by  inexperienced  men  at 
twenty-five  per  cent,  less  compensation  per  piece. 
These  new  men  averaged  $9  per  day.  The  proprietor, 
realizing  that  he  had  been  imposed  upon  by  his  former 
workmen,  and  not  wishing  to  suffer  further,  cut  the 
piece  price  fifty  per  cent.  The  new  men  were  thus 
enabled  to  earn  $4.50  per  day,  and  yet  the  proprietor 
saved  a  total  of  sixty  per  cent,  in  this  department. 

Another  set  of  workmen,  also  on  piece-work,  re- 
stricted their  output  to  $3  per  day.  This  was  done 
by  resolution  of  the  local  union.  As  the  men  had 
formerly  earned  from  $3.50  to  $4.00  per  day,  this 
restriction  caused  them  a  serious  loss.  They  did  not 
love  their  union.  An  earnest  plea  to  the  union 
leaders  to  withdraw  this  $3~a-day  law  resulted  in  the 
promise  to  do  so  if  the  proprietor  would  agree  not 
to  cut  the  piece  price  when  the  men  turned  out  a 
larger  product.  Such  agreement  has  since  been 
made. 

Restrictions,  I  think,  are  caused  mainly  by  the  fear 
that  the  employer  will  cut  the  piece  price  if  full 
energy  brings  the  workman's  earnings  beyond  the 
normal.  In  England  this  fear  is  based  on  sad  ex- 
perience. Here  comes  the  connection  between  re- 
striction of  output  and  trade  agreement.  The  em- 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  253 

ployer  who  wishes  his  men  to  do  their  best  must 
assure  them  and  guarantee  them  that  the  piece  price 
will  not  be  cut.  Then  the  quick,  bright  workman 
may  safely  come  to  the  front,  may  use  the  talents 
which  nature  has  given  him  to  improve  his  condi- 
tion, and  get  the  just  reward  of  industry. 

I  do  not  believe  in  the  "  premium  "  plan.  The  sur- 
plus output  of  a  worker,  beyond  the  standard,  is 
worth  just  as  much  as  his  other  work.  He  should  get 
one  hundred  cents  on  the  dollar  for  it.  (Applause.) 
What  right  has  his  employer  to  go  in  partnership 
with  him  on  that  surplus  energy?  Who  is  doing  the 
whole  work? 

The  system  that  urges  rapid,  bright  workmen  to  go 
slow  and  restrict  their  efforts  so  as  to  do  no  more 
than  their  fellows  whom  nature  has  not  favored  with 
equal  ability,  the  system  which  establishes  in  fact  the 
dead  level  of  production,  is  a  curse  to  our  wage- 
earners;  it  kills  hope  in  the  breast  of  our  people,  hope 
which  alone  makes  life  worth  living.  It  is  un- 
American;  our  free  institutions  guarantee  the  right 
to  develop  our  energies  and  to  strive  to  bring  out 
the  best  that  is  in  us.  I  appeal  to  employers  to 
assure  their  men  of  full  compensation  for  their  full 
day's  work.  I  appeal  to  wage-earners  to  deliver  their 
best  efforts  each  day.  The  English  trade  unionists 
who  are  represented  in  America  to-day,  through  Mr. 
Mosely's  princely  generosity,  state  in  positive  terms 
that  their  unions  stand  for  a  fair  day's  work  for  a 
fair  day's  pay.  They  do  not  stand  for  the  "ca 
canny"  or  go-slow  fiction.  Our  great  American  labor 
leaders,  also,  are  frank  in  their  statement  that  restric- 


254 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


tions  of  energy  are  bad  for  the  wage-earners.  They 
should  freely  spread  the  news  of  their  convictions  to 
the  many  local  unions,  some  of  whose  leaders  do  not 
yet  realize  the  error  of  restriction. 

Let  employers  and  employees  work  together  to 
bring  about  the  following  conditions:  shorter  hours, 
gradually,  as  trade  warrants;  full  development  of 
energy;  a  full  day's  work;  a  full  day's  pay.  (Great 
applause.) 

A  DELEGATE  :  I  would  like  to  ask  Mr.  Marks  a 
question:  In  the  illustration  you  used  about  paying 
the  men  $9  a  day,  don't  you  think  it  was  better  for 
them  to  work  for  $4.50  a  day  rather  than  have  the 
manufacturer  put  out  of  business? 

MR.  MARKS:  The  manufacturer  saved  twenty-five 
per  cent,  by  paying  $9  a  day,  besides  the  additional 
saving  in  fixed  expenses  by  requiring  less  men  to  do 
his  work.  However,  I  cited  the  case  to  show  an 
example  of  flagrant  restriction  of  output,  as  well  as 
the  fear  inspired  in  men  in  other  departments  by  this 
fifty  per  cent,  cut  in  the  piece  price. 

THE  DELEGATE:  Would  not  competition  in  time 
put  the  firm  out  of  business? 

MR.  MARKS:  The  manufacturer  in  question  had 
been  deceived  by  the  employees,  who  kept  their  out- 
put down  to  the  $4  mark  in  the  first  place.  At  that 
time  he  was  paying  more  than  market  rates  for  his 
labor,  and  it  was  fortunate  that  he  discovered  it  in 
time.  However,  as  I  said  before,  the  $9  rate  would 
not  put  him  out  of  business  as  quickly  as  the  $4  rate 
would  have  done. 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  255 

MR.  WILKINSON:  What  kind  of  a  factory  was  it? 
Was  it  a  cotton  goods  factory? 

MR.  MARKS  :  It  was  not  a  cotton  goods  factory.  I 
prefer  not  to  give  the  name  of  the  concern  now, 
unless  there  is  a  very  urgent  reason.  I  regret  very 
much  that  the  name  of  the  Baldwin  Locomotive 
Works  was  mentioned  in  this  room.  When  folks 
show  us  the  courtesy  which  the  Baldwins  and  others 
did  in  taking  us  through  their  works  and  allowing  us 
to  inspect  every  part  of  their  interesting  establish- 
ments, I  think  we  should  not  bring  personalities  into 
our  discussion  of  the  questions  raised.  (Applause.) 

CHAIRMAN  HANNA:  I  now  have  the  pleasure  of  in- 
troducing to  you  Mr.  Samuel  Gompers,  president  of 
the  American  Federation  of  Labor. 

MR.  GOMPERS:  Conscious  that  a  movement  of  this 
character  by  which  the  Civic  Federation  was  formed 
could  be  of  great  service  to  the  wage-earner,  to  the 
employers  of  labor,  I  gave  whatever  assistance  it  was 
in  my  power  to  give  in  the  effort  to  make  its  work 
successful.  To  me  a  thing  is  not  good  or  bad  simply 
because  it  exist  s^  or  because  it  is  formed,  but  sim- 
ply by  the  work  that  it  does,  the  work  that  it  accom- 
plishes, the  good  that  it  secures;  and  while  always 
working  for  the  best  I  am  prepared  to  meet  the  worst. 

For  that  reason  I  am  never  much  disappointed  and 
seldom  over  elated.  The  difficulty  with  some  of  the 
plans  of  our  industrial  department  or  executive  com- 
mittee of  the  National  Civic  Federation  is — and  this, 
I  think,  applies  both  to  friend  or  opponent — that 
there  is  an  over  anticipation  of  what  it  does  or  can 


2 56  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

do.  The  promoters  of  our  movement,  though,  know 
much  more  has  been  done  than  the  general  public  is 
aware  of;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  those  who  look 
askance  on  the  movement  say  that  nothing  at  all  has 
been  done,  since  they  started  out  with  the  expectation 
that  this  industrial  department  of  the  National  Civic 
Federation  was  going  to  accomplish  the  solution  of 
the  entire  industrial,  social  and  economic  problem 
simply  by  its  having  been  called  into  existence.  I 
shall  not  attempt  to  state  what  it  can  do,  what  it  has 
done — that  has  been  already  referred  to  on  several 
occasions  and  by  several  of  the  gentlemen  who  have 
addressed  these  gatherings  for  the  past  three  days; 
of  the  fact  of  bringing  men  together  to  discuss  the 
things  in  which  they  are  both  interested  and  about 
which  they  can  intelligently  speak.  We  know  that 
when  men  have  a  difference  and  are  addressing  each 
other  at  long  range,  they  usually  drift  further  apart. 
If  a  correspondence  is  the  result  of  their  differences, 
men  as  a  rule  do  not  look  for  the  strong  points  in  the 
letter  or  the  intention  of  the  opponent.  They  look 
for  the  vulnerable  point  and  make  the  attack  upon 
that  vulnerable  point,  and  again  they  are  driven  fur- 
ther apart,  with  much  more  keenness  and  bitterness 
entering  as  a  part  of  the  controversy,  while,  on  the 
other  hand,  when  men  meet  and  discuss  the  things  in 
which  they  are  mutually  or  both  of  them  interested, 
the  tendency  is  to  look  squarely  into  a  man's  eye 
and  to  read  not  only  that  which  is  upon  the  surface, 
but  that  which  moves  his  heart  and  mind;  to  pene- 
trate it  and  to  delve  down  deep  into  a  man's  con- 
science and  his  heart  and  try  to  see  whether  there  is 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


257 


aot  th  re  some  bright  spot  which  can  be  touched, 
and  to  bring  about  the  recognition  of  the  mutual  re- 
spect to  which  the  other  is  entitled.  We  realise  that, 
after  all,  neither  of  us  is  as  black  as  we  are  painted, 
or  as  we  imagine  And  this  is,  after  all,  the  greatest, 
perhaps  the  best,  work  which  the  Civic  Federation 
can  perform.  (Applause.) 

If  you  will  permit  me,  I  want,  as  near  as  I  can, 
to  give  you  cognizance  of  a  few  points  which  have 
been  brought  out  at  this  conference,  and  to  make  a 
running  comment  on  some  of  the  things  which  I  be- 
lieve ought  to  receive  consideration. 

We  are  all  of  us  interested  in  the  mission  in  which 
our  British  friends  have  come  to  this  country, 
the  enterprise  of  Mr.  Mosely,  which  we  admire  in 
having  the  delegation  come  here.  My  only  regret 
has  been  that  I  have  been  so  tied  up  with  the  work 
in  connection  with  our  movement  during  their  visit 
to  our  country  that  I  have  been  unable  to  render 
them  any  further  material  assistance.  I  have  heard, 
however,  from  our  representatives  and  organizers  of 
the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  and  I  am  pleased 
to  be  informed  by  the  delegation  that  the  local  repre- 
sentatives of  organized  labor  in  the  various  cities  and 
towns  visited  have  placed  themselves  at  the  disposal 
of  the  delegation  and  rendered  them  every  assistance 
within  their  power.  I  think  that  our  British  trade 
unionists  when  they  go  back  will  have  something  to 
report  of  what  they  have  seen,  and  they  will  have 
something  to  report  of  the  differences  they  have  seen, 
and  that  is  the  enormous,  great  contrast  which  they 
have  been  led  to  believe  is  the  condition  between  the 


258  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

American  workingmen  and  the  British  workingmen. 
No  man  is  more  conscious  of  the  fact  of  the  splendid 
development  and  advancement  that  has  come  into  the 
condition  of  the  American  working  people  than  I,  but 
it  is  a  mistake  to  believe  that  that  change  and  that 
differentiation  is  of  such  a  character,  so  marked,  as 
to  appeal  to  the  sense  of  vision  at  once.  And  let 
me  say,  too,  that  the  very  largest  part,  if  not  all  of 
that  improvement,  is  due  to  two  things:  one,  to  the 
great  material  wealth  of  our  country,  and  the  second 
and  most  potent,  the  organized  effort  of  the  wage- 
workers  of  our  country  in  their  trade  unions.  I  am 
sure  that  no  one,  I  feel  confident  that  no  one,  would 
take  exception  to  criticism  of  statement  made  except 
as  we  may  view  differently  what  we  intend  to 
convey. 

I  understood  Mr.  Mosely  to  say  that  the  general 
trend  was  that  men  wanted  more,  were  entitled  to 
more,  than  wages,  and  that  if  good  wages  or  more 
than  mere  wages  was  not  granted,  they  would  or- 
ganize and  demand  it.  Now,  I  don't  know  exactly 
whether  Mr.  Mosely  made  that  statement  or  one  ot 
the  other  gentlemen  did,  whose  name  I  did  not  catch, 
but  at  any  rate,  whether  made  by  Mr.  Mosely  or  by 
another  gentleman  who  followed  him,  it  is  a  fact,  and 
it  explains  what  Mr.  Mosely  took  for  an  act  of  philan- 
thropy on  the  part  of  some  employers  within  the  past 
few  months  in  the  United  States  when  they  made  a 
voluntary  increase  in  wages.  It  was  not  philan- 
thropy; it  was  not  of  the  good  will  of  the  employer 
towards  the  employees,  but  it  is  the  consciousness  of 
the  fact  that  the  pendulum  in  the  industrial  history 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


259 


of  the  United  States  has,  for  the  past  few  years,  swung 
in  the  direction  of  prosperity  and  activity,  and  that 
the  working-people  of  the  United  States,  who  for  a 
period  of  four  or  five  years  suffered  untold  misery  as 
a  result  of  industrial  stagnation,  reduction  after  re- 
duction of  wages,  are  now  determined  to  get  more  — 
a  larger  share  out  of  their  production  of  the  wealth  of 
our  country. 

Mr.  Mosely  joined  with  a  number  of  perhaps  very 
well-meaning  friends  in  the  cry  for  the  "freedom  of 
labor";  the  right  of  the  workingman  to  work  for 
whom  he  pleases,  for  what  he  pleases,  and  where  he 
pleases.  As  if  the  trade  union  movement  was  opposed 
to  that  principle.  It  is  a  bugaboo  that  is  raised  by 
those  who  are  opposed  to  our  movement  or  who  do 
not  understand  it.  The  labor  movement  does  not 
deny  a  man's  legal  right  to  work  for  whom  and  when 
and  where  he  pleases,  but  there  is  something  beside 
and  apart  from  the  legal  right,  and  that  is,  the  moral 
obligation. 

A  man  can,  upon  the  prairie,  build  himself  a  hut 
and  apply  the  torch  to  it.  Let  him  attempt  to  do 
that  in  any  one  of  our  metropolitan  cities  and  he  will 
be  arrested  and  put  into  jail,  for  out  upon  the  plain 
he  does  himself  the  only  injury  that  is  being  done, 
but  in  the  city  he  endangers  the  life  and  the  property, 
and  the  peace  and  tranquility  of  his  neighbors.  If 
in  the  old,  old  time,  a  man  wanted  to  sell  his  labor 
to  another  under  the  old  and  primitive  conditions, 
if  he  desired  to  accept  poor  economic  conditions  as 
the  result  of  his  work,  he  injured  no  one  but  himself. 
In  our  day  of  highly  developed  industry,  with  con- 


26o  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

centrated  wealth  under  the  direction  of  the  few — or 
comparatively  few — the  individual  workman  who  at- 
tempts to  make  a  bargain  with  the  directors  or  the 
representatives  of  such  a  directorate  simply  places 
himself  in  the  position  of  a  helpless,  rudderless  craft 
on  a  tempestuous  ocean.  If  he  but  did  himself  a 
wrong  we  might  pity  him  and  concede  not  only  his 
legal  but  his  moral  right ;  but  the  workman  who  toils 
for  wages  and  expects  to  end  his  days  in  the  wage- 
earning  class,  as  conditions  seem  to  point,  it  will  be 
a  necessity,  his  bounden  duty  to  himself,  his  family, 
to  his  fellow-men  and  to  those  who  are  to  come  after 
him,  to  join  in  the  union  with  his  fellow-craftsmen 
and  fellow-workmen  to  uphold  the  standard  of  life 
and  to  make  joint  effort  for  the  uplifting  of  the  craft, 
the  wage- workers,  and  with  it  the  whole  social  fabric 
of  our  time  and  for  the  time  to  come. 

I  have  heard  here  severe  criticism  and  arraignment 
of  the  labor  movement,  the  strike  and  the  boycott. 
But  I  have  not  heard  a  word  in  criticism  of  the  black 
list ;  I  have  not  heard  a  word  of  the  victimization  of 
the  workingmen;  not  a  word  in  adverse  criticism  of 
it.  And,  gentlemen,  when  you  undertake  to  criticise 
the  faults  or  what  you  believe  to  be  the  faults  of 
labor,  it  would  not  be  amiss  to  turn  your  gaze  inward 
to  see  whether  there  is  not  fault  on  your  side.  The 
lockout  and  the  black  lists  are  the  weapons  employed 
against  labor. 

For  years  and  years  the  advocates  of  trade  unions, 
organizations  of  labor,  have  stated  that  the  best 
thing  that  could  occur  for  our  movement  would  be 
the  organization  of  the  employers  and  to  meet  the 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  26i 

organized  employers'  representatives  with  the  repre- 
sentatives of  organized  labor. 

One  of  the  gentlemen  addressing  this  conference 
referred  to  the  fact  that  organizations  of  labor  should 
be  met  and  dealt  with,  and  I  agree  with  that.  And 
he  suggested  that  if  you  are  going  to  fight  it  at  all, 
fight  it  when  it  takes  its  inception  into  your  plant; 
in.  other  words,  fight  it  out.  I  should  prefer  that  you 
do  not  do  anything  of  the  kind.  I  should  prefer  that 
our  attempts  to  organize  the  employees  of  your 
several  factories  and  plants  would  meet  with  your 
cordial  approval.  But  let  me  say  this  to  you:  that 
whether  you  approve  it  or  disapprove  it,  we  propose 
to  organize  anyway.  (Applause.)  And  frequently 
the  attempts  to  fight  against  the  organization  make 
you  our  best  and  most  effective  organizers. 

One  gentleman  suggests  bonding  the  union  and 
bonding  it  before  arbitration.  Incorporate  the 
unions  so  that  "we  can  reach  (the  funds  of)  the 
union."  A  few  days  ago  I  had  the  privilege  of  ad- 
dressing myself  particularly  to  this  subject  while  in 
the  city  of  Boston,  and  it  seemed  then  as  it  seems 
strange  to  me  now,  that  the  gentlemen  who  dis- 
cussed this  proposition  avowedly  upon  the  high 
plane  of  "benefiting  the  workmen,"  constantly  have 
their  eyes  upon  the  few  dollars  in  the  treasury  of  the 
union.  A  gentleman  stated  last  week  to  me  that  the 
unions  ought  to  court  just  such  a  thing  and  that  no 
money  that  the  union  could  expend  could  be  put  to 
better  advantage  than  the  payment  of  damages  in 
which  it  might  be  mulcted  by  a  decision  of  the  court. 
That  is  one  way  of  putting  it,  but  perhaps,  like 


262  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

Claude  Melnotte,  he  thought  that ,  assuming  the  charac- 
ter of  a  prince,  he  ought  to  be  generous  with  other 
people's  property.  It  is,  indeed,  strange  how  many 
gentlemen  are  solicitous  for  the  trades  union  to  be- 
come incorporated  and  to  be  placed  within  what  they 
call  the  purview  of  the  law  in  order  that  it  may  be 
mulcted  in  damages  for  any  suit  that  may  be  brought 
against  the  organization.  We  leave  out  the  oppor- 
tunity for  harassing  the  union  by  interminable  law 
suits.  And  besides  this,  the  union  attacked  from 
any  and  from  all  sides  would  be  in  constant  litigation, 
and  it  is  unquestioned  that  our  organizations  could 
not  attempt  to  retain  counsel,  either  in  numbers  or 
in  talent,  comparable  to  the  counsel  which  is  always 
at  the  command  of  wealthy  concerns. 

Now,  to  avoid  these  interminable  litigations,  to 
avoid  a  possible  repetition  to  attempt  to  do  in  our 
day  or  in  the  near  future  what  was  done  in  the  days 
gone  by,  the  confiscation  of  the  funds  of  the  union, 
as  was  done  with  the  guilds,  organized  labor  is  opposed 
to  the  incorporation  of  the  trades  unions. 

Criticism  was  indulged  in  in  regard  to  the  working- 
people  taking  advantage  of  a  corporation  desirous  of 
renewing  a  franchise — securing  a  new  franchise  or  a 
new  privilege.  I  do  not  believe  that  in  the  ordinary 
affairs  of  life  men  ought  to  do  these  things,  but 
in  the  case  cited,  the  Chicago  Street  Railway,  there 
the  policy  of  the  company  was  to  discharge  any  man 
who  showed  an  inkling  to  join  a  union,  and  that 
eighty  men — the  employees  of  the  company,  against 
whom  not  a  word  of  adverse  criticism  was  made  here 
— eighty  men  were  thrown  upon  the  streets  because 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  263 

they  dared  to  make  the  attempt  to  organize  a  union ! 
Of  course,  for  a  time  the  spirit  to  organize  was 
crushed  out,  but  the  company  just  then  had  in  view 
the  application  for  a  new  franchise,  a  new  privilege. 
Can  you  blame  the  men  when  they  thus  saw  their 
opportunity  and  took  advantage  of  it,  and  insisted  that 
they  should  have  the  right  to  organize,  and  have  better 
pay  than  the  miserable  wage  that  they  were  receiving, 
and  that  they  should  have  shorter  hours  and  a  better 
arrangement  of  their  trips  ?  They  took  advantage  of 
the  opportunity  presented  to  them.  They  are  deserving 
of  our  commendation  rather  than  our  condemnation. 

It  is  strange  how  many  panaceas  are  offered  for  the 
ills  of  mankind,  and  particularly,  the  ills  of  our  indus- 
trial problem.  Compulsory  arbitration  is  but  one  of 
them.  I  am  exceedingly  pleased  that  upon  the  plat- 
form of  this  conference  for  the  past  three  days  no  one 
has  openly  avowed  himself  as  being  in  favor  of  com- 
pulsory arbitration.  Thank  the  Lord,  we  are  just  a 
few  years  ahead  of  that.  We  have  got  that  behind 
us,  and  it  was  through  the  sturdy  fight  made  by  the 
men  who  understood  what  that  proposition  implied, 
that  now  the  atmosphere  is  clarified  and  we  no  longer 
hear  of  compulsory  arbitration.  But  indirectly,  our 
friend  Barnes,  from  England,  intimated  the  possi- 
bility resulting  from  the  adoption  of  the  proposition 
contained  in  the  paper  of  our  friend,  Mr.  Adams. 

Without  attempting  to  quote  literally — because  I 
have  rather  a  bad  verbal  memory — Mr.  Barnes  stated 
that  he  favored  Mr.  Adams'  proposition,  for  he  felt 
sure  that  after  one  or  two  attempts,  after  one  or  two 
expressions  of  opinion,  that  if  either  the  employer 


264  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

or  the  employee  would  refuse  to  abide  by  the  opinion 
expressed,  that  the  defect  would  be  soon  supplied. 
And  I  think,  knowing  what  Barnes  believes  upon 
that  proposition  t  I  have  in  mind  the  thought  that  he 
had  in  his  mind  but  did  not  express;  the  thought 
being  that  after  the  enforced  investigation  was  had 
and  opinion  expressed  as  to  who  was  right  and  who 
was  wrong,  and  the  failure  of  the  party  against  whom 
the  opinion  was  expressed  to  yield  a  ready  willingness 
to  comply,  that  the  lawmakers  would  supply  the 
other  limb  of  that  tree  and  clothe  such  a  commission 
with  power  to  decide  and  compel  the  obedience  of 
either  the  one  or  the  other  side  to  comply  with  the 
terms  of  the  award.  I  want  to  say,  my  friends,  that 
if  a  law  founded  upon  the  points  raised  by  Mr. 
Adams  in  his  excellent  and  valuable  paper  could  be 
framed,  and  the  assurance  positively  felt  by  the 
people  of  our  country  that  there  would  be  no  step  in 
the  direction  of  compulsory  arbitration,  I  should 
gladly  give  my  acquiescence  and  use  what  influence 
I  may  possess  to  see  that  there  would  be  compulsory 
investigation  and  simply  an  opinion  rendered.  But 
I,  too,  know  something  of  the  trend  of  legislative 
effort,  and  knowing  this,  I  am  not  inclined  to  give  an 
assent  to  what  might  possibly  bring  about  an  awful 
condition  of  affairs,  which  I  know  must  inevitably 
follow  in  the  wake  of  compulsory  arbitration 

I,  with  others,  deplore  the  strike  of  the  miners;  de- 
plore the  necessity  for  the  strike,  but  after  we  have 
got  through  the  troubles  that  are  now  upon  us  by 
reason  of  that  strike,  by  reason  of  the  obstinacy  of 
the  presidents  of  the  companies,  I  think  that  we  will 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  265 

all  agree  that  the  miners'  strike  made  for  the  general 
good.  It  compelled  people  to  think  upon  this  great 
economic  and  social  problem  who  went  on  year  after 
year  living  and  being  dragged  through  the  world 
without  consciousness  of  the  struggle  that  is  going 
on.  We  now  understand,  or  are  beginning  to  learn, 
the  more  rightful  relations  that  should  exist  between 
employer  and  employed;  the  more  rightful  relations 
that  should  exist  between  man  and  man.  If  the 
strike  had  done  nothing  more  than  that,  the  strike 
of  the  miners  made  for  the  general  good.  No  man 
that  has  given  the  question  of  labor  any  considera- 
tion will,  for  a  moment,  stand  before  the  people  as 
an  advocate  of  strikes.  No  man  of  reason  advocates 
conflict,  but  there  are  some  things  that  are  worse 
than  conflict ;  there  are  some  things  that  are  worse 
than  strikes,  and  among  them  is  a  debased  and  de- 
graded manhood. 

There  are  times  in  the  history  of  industry  when 
workmen  who  would  refuse  to  strike  would  sign  them- 
selves as  forever  bondmen,  cowards  unworthy  the 
name  of  either  American  citizens  or  British  subjects. 

Strikes,  when  unavoidable,  are  really  the  cruci- 
bles out  of  which  the  industry  of  humanity  emerges 
with  renewed  vitality  and  progress  and  success. 

One  would  imagine,  hearing  all  the  attacks  that 
are  made  upon  the  one  or  the  other  side,  that  these 
two  great  powers,  these  two  great  empires — the 
United  States  and  Great  Britain,  were  drying  up  of 
dry  rot,  instead  of  which  they  are  the  two  virile 
nations  of  the  world.  Proud,  haughty,  human, 
humane,  considerate — more  considerate  than  any 


266  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

other  nation  on  the  face  of  the  globe ;  more  humane 
in  spite  of  their  own  faults,  against  which  we  protest 
whenever  we  discover  them.  They  are  making  the 
fight  of  to-day  and  making  the  fight  for  to- 
morrow, and  meeting  the  new  problems  as  they  con- 
front us  and  dealing  with  them,  sometimes  engaging 
in  conflict  to  eradicate  them,  but  we  emerge  out  of 
them  with  stronger  convictions  of  the  right  and  with 
a  greater  and  higher  determination  to  do  right.  In- 
dustrially, commercially,  politically,  humanely,  the 
United  States  and  Great  Britain  stand  at  the  head  of 
the  world;  and  while  it  is  a  splendid  service  which 
we  are  rendering  to  our  fellows  of  our  own  country 
and  elsewhere  in  endeavoring  to  minimize  the  con- 
flicts which  occur,  to  avoid  them  whenever  possible, 
I  resent  the  notion  or  thought  which  may  be  lurking  in 
the  mind  of  any  man,  that  through  the  industrial 
struggles  through  which  we  are  passing,  we  are  not 
making  good  progress. 

Let  me  say  further  that  I  believe  that  men  engaged 
in  a  cause  must  be  right.  I  don't  believe  that  might 
makes  right,  but  I  am  confident  that  those  who  are 
simply  right  and  have  no  power  usually  have  their 
rights  disregarded.  So  that,  with  right  might  is  re- 
quired in  order  to  enforce  it. 

One  of  the  greatest  complaints  that  I  think  organ- 
ized labor  has  to  make  against  employers  is  the  action 
of  too  many  who  refuse  to  recognize  the  union  by  con- 
ference with  its  representatives.  We  claim  that  the 
walking  delegates,  if  you  please,  the  business  agent, 
or  a  committee  of  the  union,  is  the  union's  counsel. 
Politically,  in  our  governmental  affairs,  we  have 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  267 

recognized  the  right  to  be  heard  by  counsel  in  any  of 
the  courts  of  our  country,  or  our  States  or  munici- 
palities; in  every  place  where  our  rights  are  at  stake, 
the  right  to  be  heard  by  counsel  is  a  constitutional 
guaranty.  Workingmen  have  more  cases  in  which 
they  are  interested  in  the  court  of  industry,  where 
their  employers  are  interested,  too;  and  they  demand 
the  right — the  extension  of  that  political  right  to  the 
industrial  field — the  right  to  be  heard  by  counsel. 
He  who  denies  that  right  to  wage-earners  flies, 
theoretically  at  least,  into  the  face  of  the  right  guar- 
anteed by  the  constitution  of  our  country  and  the 
States  of  our  Union. 

I  realize  that  out  of  all  the  struggles  that  come, 
out  of  this  great  fight  that  is  being  made,  there  is  con- 
flict, but  you  will  usually  find  resulting  from  it  a 
conference,  then  a  conciliation,  and  then  arbitration 
and  agreement.  These  are  the  various  stages  through 
which  the  industrial  struggle  passes,  but  we  don't 
want  that  arbitration  unless  it  is  of  that  order  volun- 
tarily entered  into,  and  the  awards  voluntarily  and 
faithfully  complied  with. 

Now,  there  is  another  danger  to  which  Mr.  Mosely 
called  attention,  and  he  was  supported  in  that  by  the 
statement  of  two  or  three  others,  and  that  was,  he 
called  attention  to  what  he  believed  to  be  the  danger 
of  the  American  employers  consenting  to  a  reduction 
in  the  hours  of  labor  unless  it  was  general,  unless  it 
was  universal.  Now  I  want  to  say  to  my  friend,  Mr. 
Mosely,  that  in  that  I  take  issue  with  him  absolutely, 
and  those  who  take  sides  with  him.  Are  we  to  wait 
in  the  United  States  and  in  England  with  us, 


268  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

until  Germany  and  France  and  Italy  and  Spain  and 
Austria  and  Russia  and  several  other  continental 
European  countries — to  wait  until  they  shall  estab- 
lish the  eight-hour  working  day  before  we  introduce 
it  in  the  United  States?  We  say  to  you,  gentlemen: 
"We  thank  you  for  your  suggestion;  thank  you 
for  your  good  intentions,  but  we  cannot  follow  your 
advice." 

Incidental  to  that,  I  want  to  take  cognizance  of  a 
remark  made  by  my  friend  Mr.  Gunton,  last  evening 
in  connection  with  that  same  subject,  when  he  said 
that  he  had  known  me  for  many  years,  rather  favor- 
ably; that  he  had  always  agreed  with  me  and  that 
he  finds  himself  at  odds  with  me  on  the  eight-hour 
bill  which  has  passed  the  House  of  Representatives 
of  the  United  States  and  is  now  before  the  Senate 
Committee  on  Education  and  Labor.  He  said  he  was 
opposed  to  that  bill  because  it  would  result,  if  enac- 
ted, in  establishing  the  eight-hour  day  in  "spots." 
Now,  I  appreciate — I  am  sorry  Mr.  Gunton  is  not 
here — I  appreciate  the  friendship  of  Mr.  Gunton  as  I 
appreciate  the  friendship  of  any  good  man,  but  simply 
because  a  man  goes  wrong  or  makes  a  mistake,  it  is 
not  my  fault  that  he  is  not  in  accord  with  me. 
(Laughter.)  The  fact  of  the  matter  is  that  there 
never  yet  in  the  whole  world  was  a  great  industrial 
reform  inaugurated  universally.  It  always  has  been 
inaugurated  in  spots. 

Supposing  we  were  to  follow  the  advice  as  working- 
men  and  join  with  the  employers  of  labor  in  the 
United  States  in  saying  that  we  will  not  make  any 
effort  to  introduce  the  eight-hour  work-day  in  the 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  269 

United  States  until  it  becomes  universal.  Well,  per- 
haps Mr.  Rockefeller  might  send  a  delegation  of 
trades  unionists  of  the  United  States  to  Great  Britain, 
and  then  we  will  learn  and  teach  in  turn.  Then  the 
workingmen  of  the  United  Kingdom  and  the  working- 
men  of  the  United  States,  having  agreed  that  they 
are  up-to-date,  send  a  delegation  overseered  by 
Mr.  Mosely  and  Mr.  Rockefeller  to  Germany,  and 
then  we  will  undertake  to  inaugurate  a  campaign  of 
education  until  we  have  secured  the  assent  of  the 
German  manufacturers  and  the  German  workingmen. 
And  then  we  will  still  continue  and  jointly,  the  three, 
perhaps,  with  some  successor  of  Herr  Krupp,  or  some 
other  gentleman  of  that  character,  will  send  over  a 
delegation  to  France,  and  so  on  and  so  on.  And  in 
the  meantime  little  Japan  will  develop  into  a  great 
industrial  country,  and  then  we  will  have  to  go  to 
Japan,  and  then  we  will  have  to  wait  until  China  is 
prepared  for  the  universal  eight -hour  day. 

I  say  to  you,  Mr.  Mosely,  and  gentlemen,  that  we 
won't  wait;  we  won't  wait.  We  know  what  a 
shorter  work-day  means;  there  is  not  any  man  upon 
this  floor  or  anywhere  who  dares  dispute  the  prop- 
osition that  a  shorter  work-day  means  better  men, 
better  workmen;  more  productive  workmen;  more 
intelligent  workmen;  better  citizens,  better  humane 
men.  (Applause.) 

And  when  that  is  not  denied,  when  that  is  a  uni- 
versal fact,  God  speed  the  day  of  the  workingmen  of  a 
country  who  shall  have  the  intelligence  and  fore- 
sight to  see  that  the  introduction  of  the  eight-hour 
day  is  brought  about  soon.  (Applause.)  The  country 


270 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


that  will  inaugurate  the  shorter  work-day  for  labor  is 
the  country  that  is  going  to  have  the  commanding 
influence  in  the  industry  of  the  world.  The  country 
that  lags  behind  in  the  movement  to  reduce  the 
hours  of  labor  is  the  country  that  will  suffer  in  the 
markets  of  the  world  as  well  as  in  the  deterioration 
of  its  own  people. 

Our  friend,  Mr.  Nixon,  referred,  and  very  genially 
and  ably,  to  the  eight-hour  work-day,  and  I  want  to 
say  that  I  agree  very  largely  with  him  in  the  same 
things,  except  that  he  says  he  would  like  to  see  it 
done  by  law.  Well,  we  will  try  to  do  that  by  law. 
If  we  can  we  will  do  it  upon  the  economic  field  by 
agreement  with  our  employers,  where  we  cannot  do 
it  by  law.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  let  me  call  your  atten- 
tion to  this :  During  an  investigation  by  the 
House  Committee  on  Labor  some  few  years  ago,  Mr. 
Cramp,  of  the  Cramp  shipyards,  stated  that  in  a  com- 
petition for  the  building  of  a  warship  for  the  Russian 
Government,  in  which  the  French  shipbuilders 
competed,  Mr.  Cramp  undertook  the  contract  to 
build  the  Russian  battleship  in  just  one-half  the  time 
that  the  French  shipbuilders  demanded,  and  for  less 
money.  In  other  words,  that  the  French  builders 
wanted  five  years  to  build  a  battleship  that  Mr. 
Cramp  contracted  and  succeeded  in  producing  within 
two  years  and  a  half. 

Now,  there  is  another  point  I  want  to  touch  on, 
a  statement  made  by  a  gentleman,  that  he  would 
rather  see  the  eight-hour  work-day  established  by 
the  law  than  by  trade  unions,  with  all  the  laws 
upon  the  statute  books  of  our  State  and  of  our 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


271 


country  in  regard  to  the  hours  of  labor — as  if  they 
were  better  than  that  of  the  trade  unions.  Now 
I  should  like  to  inquire  of  him  whether  he 
imagines  that  these  laws  upon  the  statute  books 
providing  for  the  hours  of  labor  were  enacted  through 
philanthropy  or  whether  they  were  enacted  through 
the  efforts  of  trades  unions?  I  wonder  whether  he  can 
imagine  the  enforcement  of  any  of  these  labor  laws 
unless  it  was  through  the  organization,  the  agitation 
and  the  demands  made  by  the  trades  unions.  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  there  are  some  States  in  which  there 
is  no  law  upon  the  statute  books  providing  for  the 
hours  of  labor,  and  yet  the  unions  of  a  number  of 
trades  have  adopted  and  inaugurated  universally 
for  that  trade  an  eight-hour  work-day. 

In  an  investigation  before  the  same  Committee  on 
Labor  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  an  employer 
said  that  the  normal  life  of  a  machine  to  which  he  re- 
ferred was  five  years,  but  that  in  his  plant  it  was 
speeded  up  to  that  degree  that  it  seldom  lasted  more 
than  two  and  a  half  years.  Is  it  not  strange  that 
in  our  country,  where  per  capita  the  workmen  pro- 
duce much  greater  wealth  than  do  the  workmen  of 
any  other  country,  that  some  here,  too,  indulge  in  an 
unjustified  charge  of  a  "restriction  of  output?"  I 
grant  you  that,  here  or  there,  such  a  thing  may  exist, 
as,  perhaps,  I  could  point  out  that  here  and  there 
throughout  the  country  people  still  make  moonshine 
whiskey^  and  that  here  and  there  is  one  of  these 
plague  spots  known  as  Chinatown,  but  no  one  would 
attempt,  in  speaking  of  American  conditions,  to  refer 
to  these  as  typical.  The  fact  is  that  in  the  United 


272 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


States,  for  all  practical  purposes, there  is  no  limitation 
on  the  output  of  labor,  but  we  have  insisted  that 
there  shall  be  a  reduction  in  the  hours  of  labor,  so 
that  there  may  be  better  opportunities  for  our  mental 
and  physical  development,  and  for  the  enlargement  of 
every  capacity  of  which  we  are  capable. 

I  want  to  speak  of  our  friend,  Mr.  Barbour,  who 
says  that  he  opposes  the  eight-hour  bill,  and  one  of 
the  most  potential  reasons  that  he  gave  was  that  we 
are  enjoying  prosperous  times  and  he  was  one  of 
those  who  believed  in  "letting  well  enough  alone." 
Well,  I  want  to  ask  Mr.  Barbour,  or  any  other  sane 
man,  when  does  Mr.  Barbour  expect  that  the  hours 
of  labor  shall  be  reduced  ?  When  we  are  working  too 
much  or  when  we  have  no  work  at  all  to  do?  Does 
he  expect  that  we  shall  advocate  a  reduction  in  the 
hours  of  labor  when  the  working-people  of  our 
country  are  generally  unemployed?  The  very  state- 
ment carries  upon  its  own  face  its  absurdity.  It  is 
because  of  the  fact  that  we  are  running  pell-mell  and 
producing  haphazard  without  regard  to  results,  with- 
out stimulating  or  encouraging  the  consuming  power 
of  the  working-people,  the  great  masses  of  the  people, 
that  the  danger  confronts  us.  Produce!  Produce! 
Produce!  is  the  cry  we  hear.  We  need  to  cultivate 
the  power  of  consumption  and  use  among  the  work- 
ing-people if  we  hope  to  carry  on  the  great  era  of  in- 
dustry and  prosperity  which  we  now  enjoy.  Other- 
wise you  will  keep  on  producing,  producing,  pro- 
ducing, and  the  storehouses  will  be  filled  and  the 
channels  of  industry  will  be  choked,  and  then  will 
come  what  some  gentleman  mistakenly  called  a  finan- 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


273 


cial  crisis,  but  which,  indeed,  is  an  industrial  stag- 
nation. 

Even  Mr.  Barbour  could  not  leave  the  charge  un- 
made of  a  limitation  of  work  and  limitation  of  output, 
in  that  he  said  that  the  American  workingmen  would 
get  into  their  shops  and  their  factories  five  minutes 
after  the  whistle  blows  and  get  to  "washing  up"  five 
minutes  before  twelve;  and  then  come  in  five  min- 
utes after  one,  and  then  wash  up  again  five  minutes 
before  the  whistle  blows  for  the  shutdown  of  the  day. 
He  said  that  he  might  consent  to  the  nine-hour  day, 
he  might  consent  if  the  workmen  would  make  up 
their  minds  to  eliminate  those  five  minutes  and  then 
WORK  HARDER.  Work  harder! 

Who  among  the  men  have  observed  the  way 
the  working  people  of  our  country  toil,  the  industry 
with  which  they  work;  who  among  the  employing 
class,  who  have  observed  their  own  employees  and 
the  workers  in  other  industries,  but  have  been  struck 
with  the  great  velocity  and  intensity  with  which 
the  toilers  of  our  country  work.  If  they  doubt  it, 
let  them  watch  the  men  who  come  from  any  part 
of  the  world  to  the  United  States  and  put  them  to 
work  in  any  industry  and  you  will  find,  as  many 
of  them  have  said  to  me  when  working,  ''Why,  I 
have  simply  become  dazed  with  the  rapidity  with 
which  my  shopmates  have  worked."  Work  harder! 
Work  harder!  Work  harder!  My  heavens,  it  re- 
minds me  very  much  of  what  a  friend  of  mine  some- 
times said  and  which  stnick  me  as  very  apt,  when 
he  said  that  it  seemed  some  men  believed  that  they 
were  put  on  earth  not  only  to  work  but  to  be  worked, 


274  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

and  that  inasmuch  as  they  were  but  a  very  short 
time  on  earth,  for  heaven's  sake,  work  him  harder; 
you  don't  know  when  he  is  going  to  drop  off.  (Laugh- 
er.) The  idea  of  suggesting  that  the  American  men 
work  harder!  (Laughter  and  applause.) 

Well,  we  are  going  to  do  our  duty,  and  I  want  to 
say  to  you  gentlemen  that  there  are  no  men  in  the 
world  who  are  more  impressive  in  the  lesson  that 
they  desire  to  teach  their  fellow  workers  than  are 
the  men — mistakenly  called  the  labor  leaders  of  our 
country — who  try  more  to  impress  upon  the  minds 
of  labor  and  union  men  the  necessity  of  doing  a 
good,  thorough  hard  day's  work.  When  a  man  who 
is  always  pleading  and  demanding  that  the  working 
men  of  our  country  shall  work  harder,  and  knows 
no  other  policy,  and  knows  no  other  relief,  well,  I 
simply  want  to  enter  my  emphatic  protest.  That 
is  all. 

We  believe  in  the  organization  of  labor,  and  we 
are  not  ranting  against  trusts  and  corporations  as 
such.  As  citizens  and  men  each  has  his  own  view 
and  does  just  as  he  pleases ;  his  is  the  responsibility 
to  himself  and  to  his  conscience  and  to  his  country. 
That  is  what  his  duty  is,  but  to  a  wage  earner  and 
to  a  union  man  there  are  good  trusts  or  corporations 
and  there  are  bad  trusts.  To  us  as  unionists  they 
are  employers  of  labor,  and  they  are  either  good, 
bad  or  indifferent. 

My  friends,  we  believe  that  the  organizations  of 
labor  are  moving  in  the  right  direction,  trying  to 
bring  the  workers  within  the  fold,  not  by  force,  but 
by  moral  suasion  and  by  interest  trying  to  bring 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


275 


the  wage  earners  within  the  purview  and  influence 
of  the  trades  union  movement,  and  trying  to  make 
the  men  in  our  trade  unions  careful  of  their  interests 
and  of  the  interests  of  their  fellow  workers  and 
their  fellow  citizens;  conscious  of  the  responsibility 
that  devolves  upon  them  to  instill  manhood,  dignity, 
independence  and  fraternal  and  humane  regard  for 
the  considerations  and  interests  of  others,  and  to 
move  along  the  lines,  not  of  revolution,  but  of  evolu- 
tion; not  to  borrow  trouble,  but  to  prepare  for  it; 
not  to  be  carrying  the  chip  of  defiance  upon  their 
shoulders,  but  to  be  always  organized  and  prepared 
to  resist  an  invasion  of  their  rights  or  the  imposition 
of  a  wrong.  To  continually  work  for  a  better  life, 
for  a  higher  wage,  for  a  reduction  in  the  hours  of 
their  daily  labor,  until  a  normal  workday  may  be 
reached.  To  be  honest  and  faithful  as  men  and 
as  citizens,  and  to  try  to  bring  as  we  now  find  in  our 
country,  a  democracy,  a  sovereignty  of  our  people 
politically,  so  we  may  inaugurate  a  greater  degree 
of  democracy  in  industry,  in  which  the  workers  shall 
have  a  full  voice  in  determining  the  better  condi- 
tions under  which  labor  shall  be  performed  and 
industry  carried  on  and  developed  to  the  highest 
pitch  of  possible  success.  (Prolonged  applause.) 

MR.  MOSELY:  I  have  listened  with  great  pleasure 
to  Mr.  Gompers'  speech,  and  I  agree  with  very  much 
that  he  has  said.  It  has  been  a  very  forcible  speech, 
but  as  Bismarck  remarked:  "Force  is  not  necessarily 
an  argument."  I  will,  first  of  all,  refer  to  the  eight- 
hour  day,  in  connection  with  which  my  name  has 


276  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

been  mentioned.  I  may  say  that  in  theory  I  am  ab- 
solutely in  favor  of  an  eight-hour  movement,  but  in 
practice  I  am  not  sure  that  it  is  possible  at  present. 
Mr.  Gompers  referred  to  my  statement  that  it  was 
necessary  to  bring  all  workers  into  line,  which  is 
quite  true.  I  made  that  remark.  But  when  I  re- 
ferred to  all  workers,  I  didn't  mean  Kamschatka  or 
the  Fiji  Islands.  I  referred  especially  to  the  great 
industrial  nations — the  United  States,  England  and 
Germany. 

I  have  been  a  man  who  has  been  connected  with  a 
large  variety  of  businesses;  I  have  studied  economics, 
and  I  do  not  hesitate  to  tell  the  workingman  in  this 
room  that  if  he  is  going  to  attempt  to  introduce  an 
eight-hour  movement  before  he  has  got  the  working- 
men  of  those  three  industrial  countries  into  line,  he  is 
assuredly  going  to  make  trouble  for  himself — and  you 
have  too  many  workmen  at  present  in  the  United 
States  to  support  its  industries.  The  United  States 
formerly  was  essentially  an  agricultural  country. 
Within  the  last  few  years  it  has  passed  from  that 
stage  to  the  industrial.  You  have  built  large  fac- 
tories; your  inventing  genius  has  created  great  ma- 
chinery. You  require  an  outlet  outside  of  the  United 
States  for  your  products,  and  if  you  are  going  to 
attempt  to  work  eight  hours  while  the  rest  of  the 
industrial  world — I  refer  particularly  to  the  United 
Kingdom  and  Germany — are  going  to  work  ten,  you 
will  surely  be  bringing  about  a  bad  state  of  affairs 
which  will  precipitate  a  crisis.  I  say  that  I  am  pre- 
pared to  stand  by  that  statement.  Set  to  work  and 
it  is  not  a  difficult  thing  to  bring  the  Anglo-Saxon 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


277 


workmen  into  line.  It  requires  no  mere  Rockefeller, 
no  mere  millionaire.  You  have  your  own  trade  or- 
ganizations; let  them  send  their  delegations  to 
England  and  Germany  and  attempt  to  interest  the 
bigger  minds  in  trades  unionism  in  that  great  idea. 
I  don't  think  it  is  difficult  if  you  can  set  about  it  in 
the  right  way.  I  warn  you  to  set  about  that  first, 
before  you  introduce  an  eight-hour  movement. 

Mr.  Gompers  also  referred  to  the  unions  versus  free 
labor,  with  regard  to  what  he  thought  my  views  on 
the  subject  were.  I  am  a  union  man,  and  I  stated 
publicly  that  I  am  a  union  man,  because  I  believe 
the  unions  are  making  for  a  better  state  of  things; 
because  I  believe  that  it  is  owing  to  the  action  of  the 
unions  that  the  men  are  now,  both  in  the  United 
Kingdom  and  in  the  United  States,  receiving  the  wages 
they  are  getting  to-day.  But  there  is  a  limit  to  the 
way  in  which  unionism  shall  be  allowed  a  free  hand. 
They  have  not  the  whole  of  the  workmen  enrolled. 
There  are,  in  the  United  States  and  in  other  places, 
men  who  venture  to  think — I  don't  say  rightly  or 
wrongly — who  venture  to  think  that  unionism  has 
done  harm,  and  it  is  in  regard  to  those  who  differ  in 
opinion  to  ourselves  that  I  say  a  free  voice  should  be 
given. 

Unionism  is  good,  in  my  opinion — others  may  differ 
with  me.  There  must  be  free  and  unencumbered 
right  among  the  workers  to  unionize  if  they  please; 
there  must  be  an  equally  free  right  among  those 
who  differ  from  us  to  work  and  sell  their  labor  as  they 
please.  (Applause.) 

It  has  been  remarked  by  Mr.  Gompers,  or  rather, 


278  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

an  object-lesson  was  given  by  him,  that  the  workers 
who  wished  to  sell  their  labor  in  the  free  market  were 
very  much  in  the  position  of  the  man  who,  having 
built  a  house,  decided  to  destroy  it  by  fire.  I  take 
exception  to  that  example;  I  don't  think  it  is  a  fair 
one.  I  think  it  could  be  equally  well  argued  by  the 
free  labor  advocate  that  the  man  who  sought  to 
combine  was  in  the  exact  position  of  the  man  who 
sought  to  sell  his  free  labor.  I  can  only  think  that 
there  must  be  equal  freedom  on  both  sides,  if  there 
is  to  be  any  true  progress  and  any  equality. 

The  black  list  was  referred  to  by  Mr.  Gompers.  I 
mentioned  nothing  about  the  black  list,  but  I  will 
say  this  in  regard  to  it :  I  think  the  unions  are  strong 
enough  to  take  care  of  themselves  and  to  protect  the 
interests  of  the  men  who  have  been  so-called  black- 
listed. I  am  heartily  in  sympathy  with  the  unions 
in  taking  up  the  cudgels  for  those  men  who  have 
been  discharged,  if  they  think  that  that  discharge  has 
been  unjust.  I  am  perfectly  in  sympathy  with  that, 
and  I  don't  think  there  are  many  employers  of  labor 
who  will  take  another  view.  Anyway,  if  there  are, 
they  don't  count ;  they  don't  represent  the  intelligent 
employers  of  any  country. 

Now,  that  is  all  I  have  to  say  with  regard  to  the 
three  points  concerning  which  Mr.  Gompers  used  my 
name;  there  are  one  or  two  questions  that  referred 
to  the  discussions  of  yesterday  that  I  wish  now  to 
address  Mr.  Gompers  about,  and  they  are  these:  I 
will  take  them  in  rotation — there  are  only  two. 

Speaking  of  the  Baldwin  Locomotive  Works,  I  re- 
gret exceedingly  that  there  should  have  been  any 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


279 


name  mentioned.  Mr.  Barnes,  with  one  of  my  dele- 
gates, mentioned  a  factory  in  which  he  thought  the 
conditions  were  abominable.  It  ultimately  trans- 
pired that  he  referred  to  the  Baldwin  Locomotive 
Works.  Let  me  say  that  I  don't  agree  with  the  re- 
marks that  have  fallen  from  the  two  gentlemen  with 
regard  to  those  works.  I  do  not  believe  it  would  be 
possible  for  many  thousands  of  men  to  be  working 
contentedly  for  years  if  those  conditions  prevailed. 
There  is  one  point  I  would  like  to  ask  Mr.  Gompers 
for  information.  I  have  made  some  inquiries  during 
the  last  twenty-four  hours  since  their  name  has  been 
dragged  into  prominence,  and  I  am  told  that  those 
who  are  responsible  for  the  works,  who  are  in 
charge  as  foremen  and  in  other  high  places  of 
authority,  even  the  partners,  are  men  who  have 
risen  from  the  ranks.  Now,  is  that  true  or  is  it  not,- 
that  condition  of  affairs?  If  it  is  true  I  think  that 
it  says  a  great  deal  for  their  system,  that  has  allowed 
the  men  to  come  from  absolutely  the  bottom  of  the 
ladder  to  the  top  and  run  those  great  works.  They 
are  non-union,  but  because  they  are  non-union  I 
don't  think  it  is  fair  to  attack  them.  If  non-unionism 
means  that  men  can  rise  from  the  bottom  of  the 
ladder  to  the  top  in  a  great  concern  of  that  sort,  I 
think  it  says  a  great  deal  in  favor  of  non-unionism,  if 
that  is  the  result  universally.  It  may  be,  however, 
only  an  isolated  instance. 

But  there  is  another  point  with  regard  to  these 
gentlemen  being  partners  and  organizers  and  respon- 
sible for  the  conduct  of  those  works,  and  I  don't 
know  whether  it  struck  our  friend.  Those  remarks, 


28o  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

it  seems  to  me,  look  like  throwing  mud  at  themselves, 
because  if  it  is  true  that  these  are  the  men,  the  work- 
men who  are  responsible  for  this  state  of  things,  it  is 
the  workmen  themselves  who,  having  been  put  into 
these  positions,  are  oppressing  their  brother  workmen, 
and  I  don't  think  it  sounds  well  that  the  workman  of 
this  country,  when  he  rises  rapidly,  will  use  his  power 
to  oppress  the  others.  If  that  is  the  case,  I  say  let 
us  have  the  millionaire;  let  us  have  the  capitalist — 
because  he  doesn't  do  so.  (Applause.)  I  shall  like 
to  ask  if  it  is  true  that  largely  or  more  largely  those 
responsible  for  the  Baldwin  Locomotive  Works  have 
risen  from  the  ranks? 

The  second  point,  to  which  I  should  like  to  ask  Mr. 
Gompers  to  answer  as  one  who  is  responsible  for  the 
organized  labor  of  this  country,  is  with  regard  to  the 
apprentices.  I  may  be  very  dull,  as  I  have  not  yet 
elicited  an  answer,  at  least  not  what  appears  to  me 
to  be  an  intelligible  answer,  as  to  the  apprentices. 
What  I  want  to  know  is:  Is  it  the  employer  who  is 
responsible  for  the  number  of  apprentices,  or  is  it 
the  unions  who  are  responsible  for  the  number  of 
apprentices,  or  is  it  a  matter  of  mutual  understanding 
between  the  employer  and  employee.  I  should  cer- 
tainly like  definite  information  upon  that  point. 

MR.  GOMPERS:  Of  course,  if  the  United  States  and 
Great  Britain  and  Germany  were  to  move  forward 
and  develop  industrially,  and  the  other  nations  of  the 
earth  remain  in  absolute  status  and  no  change  in 
them  occur  industrially,  the  position  taken  by  Mr. 
Mosely  would  be  justified.  But,  whether  he  likes  it 
or  not,  whether  we  like  it  or  not,  though  France  and 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  281 

Austria  and  Italy  and  Spain  and  Russia  may  not 
make  as  fast  a  progress  industrially  as  do  the  three 
other  nations  you  have  named,  Mr.  Mosely,  yet 
depend  upon  it  that  they  are  making  industrial  prog- 
gress  and  will  make  greater  industrial  progress,  and 
the  nearer  we  get  to  the  shorter  work- day,  the  nearer 
they  may  be  to  us.  It  may  not  be  known  generally,  but 
when  the  hours  of  labor  are,  say  from  fourteen  to 
sixteen  hours  a  day,  they  are  not  reduced  to  thirteen 
and  fourteen,  but  as  a  rule  they  are  reduced  imme- 
diately, whenever  a  change  occurs,  either  to  twelve 
or  eleven  or  nearly  ten.  I  doubt  that  there  is  an 
industry  to  which  any  gentleman  here  can  refer  in 
which  that  has  not  been  the  case,  when  there  have 
been  exceedingly  long  hours  of  labor,  as  I  tried  to 
indicate,  fourteen,  fifteen,  sixteen,  and  in  some  in- 
stances eighteen  hours  a  day,  that  when  a  reduction 
has  come  about,  it  has  been  to  about  twelve,  eleven, 
sometimes  ten  and  one-half  or  ten.  And  what  is  true 
in  the  industries  in  the  United  States  is  equally 
true  in  the  particular  case  I  have  cited  in  the  indus- 
tries of  the  whole  world.  Wherever  you  may  find 
working-people  in  Europe  or  in  any  other  country, 
where  they  change  their  hours  of  labor,  it  is  to 
twelve  or  to  eleven  or  to  ten,  and  in  that  same  degree 
that  we  shall  move  for  a  reduction  in  the  hours  of 
labor  for  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain — be- 
cause I  think  Great  Britain  is  pretty  close  to  us — 
you  will  find  that  the  same  reduction  in  the  hours  of 
labor  will  come  in  Germany  and  a  corresponding  re- 
duction in  the  hours  of  labor  in  France  and  Austria. 
You  cannot  wait.  My  friend  may  think  that  that  is 


282  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

"force" — it  is  simply  "emphasis" — that  is  all. 
(Laughter.)  I  cannot  help  the  manner  of  emphatic 
statement  any  more  than  my  friend,  Mosely,  can  be 
absolutely  deliberate  and  apparently  without  feeling. 

Let  me  add  this:  My  friend  Mosely  may  theorize 
as  much  as  he  pleases,  but  we  are  not  going  to  wait; 
we  will  prove  to  him,  as  we  have  demonstrated  to 
others  in  the  past,  that  a  reduction  in  the  hours 
of  labor  does  not  mean  injury,  industrially  or  com- 
mercially, or  in  any  other  way,  but  that  it  means  the 
very  reverse.  The  whole  history  of  the  movement 
to  reduce  the  hours  of  labor  is  full  of  proof  of  that  fact , 
and  I  might  cite,  as  proof,  the  case  of  Great  Britain 
and  the  United  States,  which  are  the  two  great 
countries  of  the  world  that  command  the  markets 
of  the  world  as  compared  with  any  other  two  coun- 
tries— the  United  States  and  Great  Britain,  sending 
our  product  all  over  the  world,  while  working  less 
hours  in  those  two  countries  than  in  any  other  country 
in  the  world. 

In  regard  to  the  Baldwin  Locomotive  Works,  I 
feel  that  it  was  very  unfortunate  that  the  name  was 
mentioned  here,  and  I  will  give  you  my  reasons. 
Apart  from  any  other  considerations  the  employers 
of  America  have  at  all  times  been  very  kind  to  place 
us  in  possession  of  facts  and  opportunities,  and 
have  thrown  open  their  factories  to  the  delegation 
which  Mr.  Mosely  brought  over,  and  that  fact  in 
itself  ought  to  have  been  regarded  as  sufficient  to 
have  prevented  the  name  of  any  house  being  men- 
tioned which  extended  the  courtesy  of  opening  its 
doors  to  visitors.  And  I  want  to  say  that  as  far  as 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  283 

that  particular  establishment  is  concerned,  I  only 
knew  of  certain  things  from  other  men  who  have 
worked  there  for  the  purpose  of  securing  the  in- 
formation. I  am  speaking  of  the  conditions  there, 
and  I  think  Mr.  Mosely  and  I  should  prefer  really 
that  the  particular  case  be  dropped,  and  wish  that 
it  might  be  expunged  from  our  memories  as  well 
as  from  the  records. 

I  do  not  want  to  indulge  in  any  particular  case. 
I  don't  think  it  is  right ;  it  is  hardly  fair  to  the  people 
of  that  company  I  want  to  tell  you  candidly  that 
if  I  could  organize  them,  the  men  in  that  plant, 
I  would  do  it  in  a  minute,  with  the  consent  of  the 
Baldwin  Company,  and  as  I  said,  I  would  organize 
them  in  spite  of  the  company  if  I  could  do  so.  But 
I  don't  want  to  drag  them  into  a  discussion  before  the 
public,  which  is  profitless  after  all. 

In  regard  to  the  matter  of  apprentices  I  want  to 
say  that  the  division  of  labor,  its  sub-division  in  the 
United  States,  and  its  classification,  are  going  on  to 
that  degree  that  one  scarcely  can  believe,  unless  he 
makes  a  thorough  investigation  of  it,  so  that  by 
entering  into  a  factory  he  might  be  there  for  a  week 
or  month.  In  a  month  he  will  know  perhaps 
the  branch  of  the  business  as  much  as  he  will  know 
it  in  a  year  or  in  two  or  three  years.  He  may  be- 
come more  adept,  as  it  were,  at  it,  but  he  will  know 
just  about  as  much  of  it.  And  for  that  reason  I 
should  say  that  in  those  trades  there  is  seldom 
in  the  matter  of  apprentices  any  difficulty.  We 
have  such  an  immense  number  of  what  are  known 
as  "helpers"  and  "handymen,"  who  are  limitless 


284  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

"in  number.  In  some  trades  which  yet  retain  som(i 
vestige  of  organization  there  is  a  regulation  of  the 
apprenticeship  system,  and  that  is  reached  by 
an  agreement  by  conference,  an  agreement  with  em- 
ployers. 

Now,  I  want  to  say  this:  I  don't  want  you  for  a 
moment  to  imagine  that  the  union  always  agrees 
with  the  employer  that  his  judgment  is  right  or  as  to 
what  he  is  willing  to  do,  for  very  often  we  only  know 
what  the  employer  is  willing  to  do  after  we  have  put 
him  to  the  test.  It  is  all  the  difference  in  the  world 
between  what  he  says  he  is  willing  to  do  and  what 
the  conditions  demonstrate  he  is  willing  to  do.  I 
don't  know  whether  I  have  answered  the  question 
fully,  but  I  have  tried  to  do  so. 

MR.  MOSELY:  It  is  still  not  at  all  clear  to  me  how 
you  arrive  at  it;  is  it  through  the  employer,  is  it 
through  the  union  or  by  joint  agreement? 

MR.  GOMPERS:  Usually  by  joint  agreement;  and 
I  will  add  this — I  want  to  be  fair — that  the  agreement 
is  very  often  reached  after  a  contest.  (Laughter.) 
It  is  then  only  that  we  really  learn  what  the  em- 
ployer can  really  give.  (Laughter.) 

ARCHBISHOP  IRELAND:  This  question  of  freedom 
of  labor  is  a  matter  of  considerable  importance  and 
we  should  understand  one  another.  Mr.  Gompers 
seemed  to  distinguish  and  did  distinguish  between 
the  legal  right  of  each  one  to  sell  his  labor  and  the 
moral  right.  Well,  admitting  the  distinction  and 
saying  that  the  union  did  not  deny  the  legal  right, 
but  did  deny  the  moral  right,  I  would  ask  whose 
business  is  it — the  business  of  the  State  or  the  busi- 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  285 

ness  of  unions  or  of  individuals  to  enforce  what 
they  believe  to  be  the  moral  right  ? 

For  instance,  the  unions  believe  that  independent 
workers  have  not  the  moral  right  to  sell  their  labor 
in  opposition  to  the  union  labor.  They  believe  that 
it  is  wrong  for  non-union  laborers  to  sell  their  labor 
in  opposition  to  the  union  laborers.  Very  well. 
Admit  that  for  argument  sake.  Will  the  union  be 
willing  to  leave  to  the  State  the  enforcement  of  the 
punishment  of  moral  wrong  on  the  part  of  non- 
union laborers,  or  will  the  union  take  it  in  their  own 
hands  to  discourage  moral  wrong  and  prevent 
non-union  laborers  from  selling  their  labor?  (Ap- 
pluse.)  The  enforcement  of  that  is  a  question  as 
to  which  you  could,  Mr.  Gompers,  possibly  clarify 
the  atmosphere. 

MR.  GOMPERS:  Every  association,  when  forced, 
establishes  for  itself  a  system  of  ethics.  Whether 
that  association  be  that  of  religion,  of  law,  of  med- 
icine, of  any  of  the  other  sciences,  or  of  industry  and 
of  commerce;  and  each  for  itself  uses  every  legal 
power  that  it  has  to  enforce  what  it  believes  to  be 
its  legal  and  moral  right.  Trade  unionism  and  the 
labor  movement  do  exactly  that  thing.  So  far  as 
their  legal  right  is  concerned  they  exercise  every 
legal  right  that  they  have,  infringing  on  no  other 
man's  legal  rights,  but  undertaking  to  establish 
for  themselves,  as  every  other  institution  on  earth 
establishes  for  itself,  an  ethical  code,  and  that  code  it 
seeks  to  enforce  by  every  legal  and  moral  right. 

I  hope  I  have  now  made  myself  clear. 

ARCHBISHOP    IRELAND:       I    think    I    understand 


286  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

Mr.  Gompers.  Of  course  every  association  has  the 
right  to  establish  its  own  code  of  ethics,  that  is  true. 
For  instance,  every  church  establishes  its  own  creed, 
or  rather  puts  forth  a  creed  that  is  its  own,  but  not 
every  church  has  the  right  to  go  out  in  the  streets 
and  the  public  places  and  say:  "If  you  don't  come 
to  my  code  of  ethics,  well,  I'll  fix  you."  (Laughter.) 

I  believe  that  unions  have  the  right  to  say,  to 
believe,  to  hold  as  their  doctrine,  that  it  is  wrong 
for  non-union  men  to  sell  their  labor,  as  it  were, 
in  opposition  to  union  men,  but  then — and  I  believe 
with  Mr.  Gompers — that  the  union  men  have  the 
right  to  take  all  legal  means  to  keep  the  non-union 
men  out.  But  would  such  means  as  are  sometimes 
practiced — threatening  and  making  it  impossible 
to  live  almost  if  they  come  into  work,  in  other  words, 
punish  them,  be  in  accordance  with  this  code  of  ethics? 
Now,  the  State,  if  it  is  a  moral  wrong,  the  State  is 
the  party  to  punish  moral  wrong.  The  individual 
may  believe  that  another  is  doing  a  moral  wrong, 
but  he  has  no  right  to  punish  him.  The  association 
may  believe  others  are  doing  what  is  a  moral  wrong, 
but  the  association  cannot  in  any  way  punish  them 
The  State  alone  has  the  authority  to  enforce  the 
law,  hence,  I  hope  that  whatever  the  rights  of  the 
unions  are  and  however  they  may  by  persuasion 
strive  to  persuade  non-union  men  coming  in  to 
sell  their  labor  in  opposition  to  the  unions,  still  I 
hold  that  they  cannot  interfere  physically  or  in  any 
moral  way  that  would  be  equivalent  to  physical 
force  in  keeping  out  non-union  labor.  If  they  do 
they  erect  themselves  into  a  police  tribunal,  into 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  287 

a  legal  tribunal.  They  would  take  into  their  own 
hands,  in  other  words,  the  authority  of  the  State. 
That  is  the  point.  I  did  not  mean  to  say  that  all 
moral  suasion  could  not  be  used  to  keep  out  non- 
union labor,  but  anything  approaching  physical 
force,  or  intimidation  which  would  be  equivalent 
to  physical  force,  is  wrong. 

MR.  GOMPERS:  I  dislike  very  much  to  appear 
even  to  differ  with  Archbishop  Ireland.  We 
know  how  we  all  have  had  the  highest  regard  for 
him.  I  think  that  the  difference  is  rather  more 
apparent  than  real.  I  don't  know  of  any  organi- 
zation or  any  labor  man  that  will  justify  a  union, 
or  a  union  man  going  out  and  saying  to  anybody 
who  disagrees  with  the  union  or  pursues  a  different 
course,  "I  will  fix  you."  Any  such  thing  would  be 
an  illegal  threat,  an  improper  threat.  I  differ- 
entiate the  proper  and  the  improper  threat.  For 
instance,  any  man  has  the  right  to  threaten  me  that 
he  won't  speak  to  me.  If  he  has  the  right  to  refuse 
to  speak  to  me  he  has  the  right  to  threaten  that  he 
won't  speak  to  me.  The  word  "threat"  has  been 
used  so  often  that  we  are  likely  to  be  misled  by 
what  it  really  means  and  what  is  intended  by  it. 

Organized  labor  is  opposed  to  physical  force  or 
even  the  semblance  of  it.  We  don't  want  it;  we 
don't  rely  on  it.  That  is  not  the  enforcement  I 
had  in  mind  when  I  gave  an  affirmative  answer  as 
to  the  right  of  the  organization  to  enforce  its  moral 
code — not  physical  force,  nor  anything  that  smatters 
of  it.  We  have  the  right,  however,  to  say  to  those 
with  whom  we  do  not  care  to  associate,  that  we  do 


288  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

not  wish  to  speak  to  them.  That  is  a  privilege 
accorded  to  every  citizen  and  a  right  which  we  take 
to  ourselves. 

ARCHBISHOP  IRELAND:  I  think  we  rather  agree. 
Really,  under  that  plea  the  treatment  which  would 
be  awarded  by  union  labor  to  non-union  labor  would 
be  pretty  liberal.  If  you  only  say  to  them,  "We 
don't  want  to  speak  to  you,"  (Laughter)  that  of 
course  clears  up  a  great  deal,  because  I  did  myself 
hear  in  public  that  any  physical  or  moral  intimida- 
tion, which  is  equivalent  to  physical  force,  would  be 
construed  in  such  actions  as  picketing,  if  they  see 
that  non-union  men  are  going  in,  and  then  pull 
them  out  and  say  to  them,  "If  you  do  go  we  don't 
know  what  will  happen." 

As  to  the  moral  aspect  of  the  question,  I  am  sure 
that  from  a  certain  standpoint  the  unions  can  well 
undertake  to  say  that  there  is  something  immorally 
wrong  in  men  trying  to  pull  down  labor  and  to  keep 
labor  down  to  such  a  condition  that  it  will  be  poorly 
paid,  etc.  Still,  of  course,  we  must  bear  in  mind 
that  there  are  other  aspects  of  the  non-union  cause, 
and  that  we  at  least  should  be  willing  to  give  free- 
dom of  opinion  and  to  say  that,  while  unions  have 
the  right  to  say  that  it  is  morally  wrong  for  non- 
union men  to  sell  their  labor,  still,  the  non-union 
men  have  the  right  to  believe  that  it  is  not  mor- 
ally wrong.  It  would  be  in  other  words  an  open 
question,  and  each  party  may  use  of  course  moral  sua- 
sion, in  order  to  bring  the  other  to  his  way  of  thinking. 

MR.  0.  C.  BARBER:    I  am  speaking,  perhaps,  from 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  289 

the  standpoint  of  a  manufacturer  or  an  employer 
of  labor.  As  I  have  followed  the  arguments  and 
papers  read  by  the  different  speakers,  this  one 
thought  has  occurred  to  me : 

Has  the  strength  of  the  position  of  America  in  the 
markets  of  the  world,  and  in  the  home  markets, 
been  derived  by  the  assistance  furnished  by  the 
trade  unions?  The  disposition  of  the  people  to 
organize,  from  the  lowest  labor  organization  to  the 
highest  organization  of  capital,  is  a  very  natural 
one,  but  as  my  recollection  takes  me  over  that  period 
of  the  greatest  prosperity  of  America,  it  does  not 
seem  to  me  that  that  prosperity  has  been  achieved 
by  labor  unions,  but  that  it  has  been  achieved  by 
men  of  strength,  coming  from  the  shop  in  all  branches 
of  business,  who  have  aimed  at  a  high  standard.  I 
would  like  to  ask  if  that  standard  means  high  stand- 
ard of  hours  of  work,  or  of  hours  of  play?  Man  gets 
all  he  produces  from  nature  by  labor,  therefore, 
the  laborer  is  worthy  of  his  hire,  but  if  he  wants 
much  he  must  work  much.  If  his  wants  are  prim- 
itive, as  they  were  in  olden  times,  he  can  spend  his 
time  in  hunting.  In  primitive  times  he  did  not 
have  all  the  comforts  that  the  home  furnishes  to-day. 
His  life  was  primitive — he  dwelt  in  the  forest,  where 
nature  showed  him  that  the  fittest  survived.  The 
great  tall  trees  got  their  strength  from  the  ground; 
the  lower  limbs  fell  off,  and  the  old  trunk  kept 
growing  up  and  up,  and  dominated.  In  the  life 
of  man  as  well  as  in  the  life  of  the  forest  the  same 
principle  prevails  and  governs:  "The  survival  of  the 
fittest." 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


Now,  if  you  so  organize  your  trade  unions  that 
they  are  the  fittest  way  of  handling  the  labor  of  the 
country  and  increasing  the  production  of  the  country, 
and  making  the  country  able  to  compete  in  the 
markets  of  the  world,  then  you  will  have  done  well, 
but  to-day  the  supremacy  of  the  United  States  and 
her  manufactories  over  that  of  any  other  country, 
the  most  civilized  country,  comes  not  from  trade 
unions,  but  from  the  genius  and  efforts  that  have 
been  made  by  the  individual  man. 

The  trade  unions  do  not  better  his  position,  as 
now  organized,  or  increase  his  productive  power. 
There  is  a  great  clearing  house  that  you  will  all 
have  to  account  to  in  these  transactions.  If  you 
want  the  great  position  that  America  has  acquired 
in  the  markets  of  the  world,  and  in  the  commerce 
of  the  world,  you  must  continue  along  the  lines  of 
the  "survival  of  the  fittest,"  but  if  you  commence 
and  organize  your  labor  on  the  principle  of  force, 
you  will  find  that  prices  of  commodities  will  go  up 
equally  with  the  price  of  your  labor,  and  in  the 
clearing  house  the  balance  may  be  against  you,  and 
wages  which  you  think  you  have  increased  will  have 
been  diminished  in  their  purchasing  power.  You 
may  force  your  wages  so  high  and  so  reduce  the 
hours  of  labor,  that  in  this  clearing  house  your 
markets  will  slip  away  from  you,  and  the  labor 
that  you  were  so  dependent  upon  will  have  been  lost 
in  the  competition  that  you  yourself,  through  organ- 
ization, have  created. 

I  know  something  of  England  and  the  conditions 
that  prevail  there.  I  have  been  there  on  two  sep- 


291 

arate  occasions  when  great  industries  were  pros- 
trated by  what  we  call  strikes.  Where  the  labor 
unions  dominated,  and  had  dominated  to  such  an 
extent  that  the  products  produced  from  their  labors 
could  not  be  marketed  in  the  markets  of  the  world 
by  England,  and  per  force,  the  people  engaged  in 
these  industries  were  obliged  to  fight  the  union  to  a 
finish  that  they  might  even  retain  their  home  trade. 
I  refer  to  the  strike,  first,  of  the  engineers,  where 
the  manufacturers  were  unable  even  to  control  the 
machines  in  their  own  factories,  the  whole  business 
being  dictated  by  trade  unions. 

I  refer  also  to  the  shoemakers'  strike,  where  the 
unions  kicked  against  progress  and  against  the  in- 
troduction of  labor-saving  machinery,  and  250,000 
shoemakers  went  out  on  a  strike.  I  was  there  at 
the  time  of  this  strike,  and  the  arguments  that  they 
brought  forth,  the  force  that  they  proposed  to  in- 
troduce in  boycotting  and  against  scabbing,  so- 
called,  were  both  disgusting  and  revolutionary,  and 
had  the  effect  to  kill  the  industry  for  a  long  time. 
While  the  strike  was  pending  American  and  Ger- 
man shoes  entered  the  market  and  so  filled  up  the 
markets  that  when  the  shoemaker  was  ready  to  go 
back  to  work  he  found  his  vocation  gone  for  several 
months,  and  they  have  been  laboring  under  the  dis- 
advantages of  that  strike  ever  since.  I  say  to  you, 
gentlemen,  that  I  think  the  days  of  prosperity  have 
passed  away,  in  an  industrial  sense,  for  England,  and 
largely  on  account  of  the  trade  unions,  who  have 
so  thoroughly  dominated  all  parts  of  Britain. 

I   have  listened  to  the   greatest  tribute  paid  to 


292  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

non-union  labor,  by  Mr.  Gompers,  this  morning,  in 
his  speech — a  much  greater  tribute  than  he  has 
paid  to  union  labor.  That  tribute  referred  to  the 
success  of  the  Cramps  in  securing  the  building  of 
the  Russian  battleships,  by  competition  in  the 
markets  of  the  world.  The  Cramps  were  enabled 
to  procure  this  work  because  they  were  able  to 
produce  the  work  at  as  low  a  price  and  in  shorter 
time  than  any  of  the  other  ship-builders. 

MR.  GOMPERS  (interrupts):  I  made  no  such  state- 
ment, and  I  wish  to  correct  the  last  speaker,  and 
to  say  that  what  I  said  was  this — that  the  ship-yards 
of  France  were  the  ones  I  referred  to,  and  the  ship- 
yards of  America.  It  was  a  competition  between 
the  ship-builders  of  France  and  the  ship-builders 
of  the  United  States. 

MR.  BARBER:  Between  the  two  countries  then? 
But  I  have  reason  to  know  that  the  business  was 
thrown  open  to  the  world  for  competition,  and 
the  Cramps  of  America  were  able  to  produce  the 
work  in  half  the  time  that  any  of  the  ship-yards  of 
France  could  produce  it,  and  on  a  competitive  basis 
in  price,  and  it  was  largely  due  to  the  Cramps  being 
in  a  position  where  they  could  control  and  get  out 
of  their  labor  the  maximum  amount  of  work  for 
the  hours  employed. 

I  do  not  think  this  hour  question  has  much  to  do 
with  the  real  problems  at  issue.  In  the  Cramp 
ship-yards  there  were  employed  thousands  of  people 
on  a  non-union  and  competitive  basis — on  a  basis 
of  the  "survival  of  the  fittest"  in  their  particular 
branch  of  business — the  machinist  in  his — the 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  293 

carpenter  in  his — the  blacksmith  in  his,  the 
riveter  in  his,  and  so  on,  and  the  Cramps  paid  them 
for  their  work  according  to  their  ability  to  produce, 
and  in  that  way  they  got  the  contract,  and  in  that 
way  America  has  been  reaching  out  in  the  markets 
of  the  world  in  different  lines  of  production. 

As  I  said  before,  we  have  to  account  to  the  great 
clearing  house  of  conditions,  and  before  you  under- 
take, arbitrarily,  anything,  it  will  be  well  for  you  to 
study  the  conditions.  The  closer  you  sail  along  the 
way  of  the  least  resistance,  and  follow  nature's  laws 
instead  of  trade  union  laws,  as  now  constituted,  the 
greater  will  be  results  and  your  prosperity.  The 
cheaper  will  your  homes  be  built  and  the  comforts 
that  you  put  in  them.  All  things  come  from  labor, 
therefore  the  laborer  can  produce  what  is  needed  in 
proportion  as  he  labors.  Let  labor  be  free.  Let  the 
legal  labor  day  be  eight  hours,  if  you  so  wish,  but 
do  not  force  the  man  who  has  the  energy  and  ability 
to  work  ten  hours,  to  work  less.  Give  him  freedom. 
You  must,  of  necessity,  work  along  highly  competi- 
tive lines.  It  is  nature's  law,  and  while  you  work 
together,  do  not  interfere  with  those  laws,  but  follow 
the  lines  of  least  resistance  and  you  will  get  the  best 
results. 

THE  CHAIRMAN  :  The  next  speaker  is  Mr.  Frederick 
Driscoll,  Commissioner  of  the  American  Newspaper 
Publishers'  Association. 

MR.  FREDERICK  DRISCOLL:  We  have  assembled 
here  to-day  to  learn  what  progress  has  been  made  in 
the  establishment  of  policies  and  the  accomplishment 


294  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

of  experiences  which  have  tended  to  promote  in- 
dustrial peace,  public  interest  in  which  has  been 
greatly  increased  by  the  stirring  history  of  the  past 
year. 

Upon  request,  I  appear  before  you  as  the  represen- 
tative of  the  American  Newspaper  Publishers'  Asso- 
ciation, to  briefly  relate  what  has  been  done  by  our 
organization,  to  maintain  friendly  relations  with  the 
labor  unions  with  which  we  have  to  deal. 

Our  association,  comprising  about  two  hundred  of 
the  leading  daily  newspapers  of  the  United  States  and 
Canada,  was  organized  for  mutual  benefit  in  1897. 
For  many  years  it  took  no  positive  action  on  the 
subject  of  labor.  During  the  closing  years  of  the 
last  decade  a  number  of  our  publishers  had  suffered 
from  a  severe  experience  with  strikes,  notable  among 
which  may  be  noted  the  instance  in  Chicago,  in 
1898,  when  the  stereotypers  struck  on  the  eve  of  the 
great  naval  battle  of  Santiago.  All  the  papers  in 
Chicago  united  in  closing  their  offices,  and  no  news- 
paper was  issued  in  that  great  city  for  four  days 
during  the  most  intense  news  excitement  of  the 
Spanish  War.  The  losses  to  the  publishers  of  Chi- 
cago resulting  from  this  famous  strike  have  been 
estimated  to  amount  to  more  than  a  quarter  of  a 
million  dollars.  The  publishers  finally  manned  their 
offices  with  outside  stereotypers  and  the  strike  failed. 
In  December,  1899,  the  Typographical  Union  of 
Pittsburg  declined  to  complete  its  labor  contract  at 
a  time  when  it  had  but  a  week  to  complete  the  term 
contracted  for.  Seven  daily  papers  united  in  resist- 
ance, and  a  struggle  of  three  months'  duration  en- 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


295 


sued,  involving  boycotts  and  the  usual  disturbance. 
At  the  end  of  that  time  the  union  gave  up  the  struggle 
and  the  strike  was  lost. 

In  February,  1900,  at  the  publishers'  annual  con- 
vention, the  subject  of  labor  was  taken  up.  Resolu- 
tions were  unanimously  adopted  to  appoint  a  per- 
manent special  standing  committee  to  take  charge  of 
all  labor  matters  affecting  generally  the  publishers  of 
our  association.  Authority  was  also  given  this  com- 
mittee to  appoint  a  commissioner  who  should  devote 
his  whole  time  to  this  important  work. 

The  committee  then  issued  a  circular,  which  con- 
tained the  following  paragraph; 

"This  committee  feels  charged  with  the  sacred  task 
of  settling  disputes  whenever  possible  and,  to  that 
end,  will  labor  to  secure  the  establishment  of  joint 
national  arbitration  committees  to  adjust  labor 
troubles  between  members  and  their  employees  that 
cannot  otherwise  be  settled. 

"The  committee  was  not  appointed  to  provoke 
controversies  or  to  antagonize  labor,  but  on  the  con- 
trary, to  promote  a  better  understanding  between 
members  and  their  employees.  The  services  of  the 
committee  and  its  commissioner  will  be  at  the  dis- 
posal of  any  member  of  the  association." 

The  commissioner  was  appointed  and  an  office 
opened  in  Chicago,  on  April  i,  1900.  Various  statis- 
tics were  gathered,  and  it  was  found  that  between 
eighty  and  eighty-five  per  cent,  of  the  members  had 
union  offices  in  one  or  more  of  their  departments. 

In  August,  1900,  the  commissioner  appeared  before 
the  annual  convention  of  the  International  Typo- 


296  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

graphical  Union,  and  in  a  short  address  urged  it  to 
join  with  our  association  in  establishing  a  plan  of 
arbitration  for  the  settlement  of  all  disputes  which 
could  not  otherwise  be  settled.  Authority  was  given 
the  executive  council  to  do  so,  and  in  the  following 
November  our  committee  and  this  council  held  a 
prolonged  conference,  which  resulted  in  the  formation 
of  a  tentative  plan,  to  last,  if  approved,  for  one 
year,  from  May  i,  1901.  This  plan  was  unanimously 
endorsed  by  our  association  in  February,  1901,  and 
was  then  submitted  to  the  referendum  of  the  Inter- 
national Typographical  Union.  The  vote  resulted  in 
12,544  in  favor  and  3,530  against  the  adoption  of  the 
plan.  Thus  intelligent  labor  formally  approved  the 
principle  of  arbitration  by  a  vote  of  nearly  four  to 
one. 

The  arbitration  agreement  in  accordance  with  the 
plan  was  then  executed  by  both  organizations  in- 
terested. This  agreement  provided  that  in  case  any 
publisher  of  our  association  should  bind  himself  to 
arbitrate  any  difference  arising  under  his  verbal  or 
written  contract  with  the  union,  the  International 
president  would  then  guarantee  the  complete  per- 
formance of  the  contract;  and  also  that  the  local 
union  would  arbitrate  all  differences  which  might 
arise  incident  thereto.  A  form  of  contract  was  pre- 
pared, which  was  to  be  executed  by  the  president  of 
the  International  Typographical  Union  and  the  pub- 
lisher, which  contract  embodied  all  the  provisions 
contained  in  the  agreement  with  the  American  News- 
paper Publishers'  Association.  The  experiment  was 
for  one  year  only.  During  this  time  but  one  case 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  297 

came  before  the  national  board  of  arbitration,  which 
was  composed  of  the  International  president  and  the 
Association's  commissioner,  who,  if  they  could  not 
agree,  should  choose  a  third  party  to  determine  the 
dispute.  This  case  was  decided  in  favor  of  the  Union. 

In  August,  1901,  I  appeared  again  at  Birming 
ham,  Ala.,  before  the  International  Typographical 
Union  Annual  Convention,  and  asked  that  authority 
be  granted  the  executive  council  to  extend  the  term 
and  broaden  the  scope  of  the  existing  arbitration 
agreement.  This  was  granted,  and  in  January  last, 
at  a  joint  conference,  the  new  agreement  was  framed 
and  a  period  was  fixed  for  five  years,  from  May  i, 
1902.  The  scope  of  the  new  agreement  was  ex- 
tended to  cover  the  settlement  of  disputes  which 
might  arise  in  framing  new  scales  as  to  wages  and 
hours  of  labor.  This  was  a  distinct  advance  upon 
the  previous  agreement,  for  there  is  always  more 
danger  of  trouble  and  differences  arising,  in  forming 
a  new  scale,  than  in  performing  a  current  contract. 
We  believe  now  that  very  great  progress  has  been 
made  in  securing  the  continuous  and  peaceful  prose- 
cution of  work  in  our  offices.  For  obvious  reasons 
this  is  more  important  in  the  publication  of  a  daily 
newspaper  than  in  almost  any  other  branch  of  busi- 
ness. 

During  the  year  1902  there  have  been  settled  on  the 
part  of  members  of  the  National  Arbitration  Board 
by  conciliation  or  arbitration,  labor  differences  in 
Toronto,  Saratoga  Springs,  St.  Louis,  Springfield,  111., 
two  cases  in  New  York,  and  one  in  Boston,  Mass. 
In  all  but  one  of  these  cases  the  matter  settled  per- 


298  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

tained  to  new  scales.  A  great  many  more  cases  have 
been  settled  locally,  without  the  aid  of  the  national 
board,  by  reason  of  the  fact  that  the  publisher  had 
an  arbitration  contract  with  the  International  Typo- 
graphical Union. 

This  organization  has  jurisdiction  over  the  Typo- 
graphical, Stereotypers',  Mailers',  and  Photo-En- 
gravers' Unions.  It  can  enforce  its  discipline  even  to 
the  extent  of  revoking  the  charters  of  these  subor- 
dinate unions.  No  strike  can  take  effect  or  be  legal 
until  the  same  is  ordered  by  the  International  Typo- 
graphical Union  Executive  Council.  I  can  most 
cheerfully  testify  to  the  honor  and  good  faith  which 
has  characterized  the  International  government  in 
the  multiplicity  of  business  which  we  have  transacted 
with  them.  It  is  for  the  welfare  of  their  crafts  that 
the  governing  organization  should  be  faithful  to  its 
obligations,  and  I  am  sure  its  guarantee  can  be  de- 
pended upon  as  well  as  though  it  was  incorporated 
and  was  otherwise  financially  responsible. 

As  the  peaceful  operation  of  every  mechanical  de- 
partment in  the  newspaper  office  except  the  press- 
room was  thus  provided  for  as  stated,  steps  were 
taken  last  year  to  make  the  same  arrangements  for 
arbitration  with  the  International  Printing  Pressmen's 
and  Assistants'  Unions.  An  agreement  was  executed 
with  this  organization  and  our  association  on  sub- 
stantially the  same  terms  and  for  exactly  the  same 
period  of  time,  from  May  i,  1902,  to  May  i,  1907. 
This  was  an  aid  to  us  last  March  in  settling  threatened 
trouble  in  some  of  the  principal  newspaper  offices  in 
New  York  City. 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


299 


So  that  now  all  the  mechanical  labor  employed  in 
the  newspaper  offices  is  covered  under  these  contracts. 

I  have  always  found  both  the  International  presi- 
dents ever  ready  to  co-operate  with  me  in  adjusting 
differences  and  settling  trouble  when  it  first  'arises. 
By  reason  of  this  policy  of  mutual  conciliation,  it  is 
gratifying  to  be  able  to  state  that  since  the  establish- 
ment of  our  industrial  bureau  there  has  not  been  a 
single  strike  in  any  of  the  offices  of  our  members 
covering  a  period  of  two  years  and  eight  months. 

For  the  information  of  members  of  other  branches 
of  business,  whether  organized  or  unorganized,  I  will 
state  that  the  American  Newspaper  Publishers'  Asso- 
ciation is  a  voluntary  organization:  its  action  cannot 
obligate  its  members ;  each  publisher  certainly  so  far 
as  labor  matters  is  concerned  is  absolutely  inde- 
pendent and  free  to  hold  any  attitude  toward  organ- 
ized labor  which  he  deems  for  his  interest.  Thus, 
there  are  about  ten  per  cent,  of  our  publishers  who 
have  no  relations  with  the  unions.  I  state  this  di- 
versity of  views  and  action  because  it  is  probably  the 
case,  to  a  greater  or  lesser  degree,  in  all  branches  of 
manufacturing  business.  It  seems  the  facts  as  re- 
lated show  that  any  branch  of  manufacturing  busi- 
ness can  adopt  a  similar  system  to  ours,  for  the  bene- 
fit of  members  who  feel  compelled  or  who  desire  to 
establish  harmonious  relations  with  the  unions.  Its 
practicability  has  been  demonstrated,  and  its  adop- 
tion is  cordially  recommended. 

I  am  not  here  to  expound  any  theories  on  the  rela- 
tions of  capital  and  labor.  This  is  a  rather  practical 
world,  and  a  prudent  business  man  will  always  en- 


300 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


deavor  to  profit  by  the  experience  of  others.  If  such 
experience  is  profitable  in  its  results,  it  will  be  wise 
to  be  guided  thereby.  If,  on  the  contrary,  no  good 
results  follow,  it  can  safely  be  rejected.  Tried  by 
this  test,  we  feel  sure  that  the  members  of  any 
branch  of  manufacturers,  or  other  employers  of  or- 
ganized labor,  will  make  no  mistake  if  they  follow 
in  the  footsteps  of  the  American  Newspaper  Pub- 
lishers' Association.  (Applause.) 

MR.  GOMPERS:  We  shall  now  hear  a  brief  address 
from  Mr.  Samuel  Mather,  of  the  Pickand  Mather 
Company,  of  Cleveland,  O.  Mr.  Mather  and  his 
company  deal  principally  with  longshoremen,  the 
longshoremen 's  organization. 

MR.  SAMUEL  MATHER:  It  is  only  about  five  minutes 
ago  that  your  all-compelling  secretary,  Mr.  Easley, 
came  to  me  and  requested  that  I  speak  on  this  sub- 
ject. I  told  him  I  was  here  entirely  as  an  apprentice, 
coming  here  to  listen  and  to  learn,  but  apparently 
he  believes  in  no  restriction  of  apprenticeship,  for 
he  insisted  that  I  say  at  least  a  few  words  on  a 
subject  that  I  know  something  about,  namely,  the 
working  agreement  that  has  been  existing  for  the 
last  three  years  between  the  Longshoremen's  Union 
and  the  dock  managers.  That  covers  the  business 
of  handling  iron  ore  and  coal  on  the  discharging  docks 
of  the  different  ports  of  Lake  Erie,  from  Buffalo  to 
Toledo;  Buffalo,  Erie,  Conneaut,  Cleveland,  Ash- 
tabula,  Fairport,  Sandusky  and  various  other  ports. 
I  must  confess  that  I  have  not  the  detailed  informa- 
tion on  this  subject  which  you  should  hear,  for  that 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  301 

branch  of  our  business  has  been  under  the  direct 
management  of  a  junior  member  of  our  firm;  but 
Mr.  Keefe  will  go  into  that,  undoubtedly,  fully  and  in 
detail. 

I  am  very  happy  to  be  able  to  testify  that  since 
that  continuous  arrangement  was  inaugurated,  about 
three  years  ago,  our  business  has  been  conducted 
with  very  great  advantage  compared  with  what  pre- 
vailed before.  Prior  to  that  time  the  longshoremen 
at  the  different  docks  had  to  be  treated  with  separ- 
ately and  for  different  causes.  Now,  at  the  beginning 
of  each  year,  delegates  from  each  local  union — two 
delegates,  I  think,  from  each  local  union — meet  at 
Cleveland.  They  have  their  own  meeting,  lasting  be- 
tween three  and  four  days,  during  which  time  they 
thresh  out  what  they  think  they  should  have,  what 
wages  and  hours  and  turns  they  should  have  for  the 
ensuing  year.  Then  they  meet  the  dock  managers 
and  give  their  ultimatum  or  state  their  claims.  The 
dock  managers  confer  together  and  meet  in  confer- 
ence with  them,  during  all  which  time  the  work  con- 
tinues without  interruption,  and  when  the  terms  are 
finally  agreed  upon,  as  they  have  been  in  each  year, 
without  serious  difficulty,  we  have  found  that  they 
have  been  lived  up  to.  And  if  any  occasion  of  dis- 
pute arises,  it  has  not  caused  the  work  to  terminate, 
but  it  has  been  first  locally  settled,  if  possible,  and 
if  occasion  necessitated  has  gone  up  to  the  chief 
council.  That  has  worked  satisfactorily,  as  I'  say, 
for  three  years,  and  is  a  great  improvement  over  the 
arrangement,  or  rather  the  lack  of  arrangement,  that 
existed  before.  I  can  testify  a  little  as  to  the  im- 


302 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


provement,  for  before  that,  as  I  said  at  first,  each 
dock  claimed  different  wages,  frequently  different 
terms,  and  it  had  to  be  fought  out  individually.  I 
recall  very  well  at  one  time  that  our  honored  chair- 
man's brother,  Mr.  L.  C.  Hanna,  and  I,  had  to  go 
down  to  Ashtabula  to  meet  the  workmen  there  and 
try  to  settle  a  dispute  that  had  arisen  there.  We  went 
down  there  ostensibly  to  meet  the  foremen  of  the 
different  gangs,  but  when  we  reached  there  we  found 
we  were  to  have  a  sort  of  mass-meeting.  A  great 
hall  had  been  hired  and  all  the  men  were  there.  We 
had  to  make  little  addresses  to  them  and  state  our 
side  of  the  case,  but  I  saw  speedily  that  very  little 
was  to  be  gained  by  that;  a  great  many  of  the  men 
did  not  understand  us;  they  did  not  speak  in  our 
language,  did  not  understand  English  well,  and  I 
said  we  would  have  to  present  our  claims  in  circulars, 
which  would  have  to  be  printed  so  as  to  reach  the 
individual  men,  which  we  accordingly  did,  and  had 
our  circulars  printed  in  Hungarian  and  several  lan- 
guages, and  finally  worked  out  some  result.  This 
with  the  shovelers  and  day  laborers. 

Then  the  engineers  had  to  be  treated  with,  and  that 
was  agreed  to  be  left  to  arbitration.  Mr.  Hanna  was 
to  present  our  side;  a  laboring  man  by  the  name  of 
Pat  Ryan  was  to  present  the  side  of  the  engineers  and 
hoisters,  and  they  agreed  upon  a  merchant  there  who 
was  to  be  the  referee.  Then  Mr.  Ryan  conducted 
Mr.  Hanna  down  to  the  harbor  again,  telling  him  not 
to  be  afraid,  that  he  would  protect  him.  Mr.  Hanna 
was  even  a  more  stalwart  specimen  of  humanity  than 
our  good  chairman,  and  Mr.  Ryan  was  a  scant  five 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  303 

feet.  (Laughter.)  Upon  arriving,  Mr.  Hanna  arose 
and  made  an  elaborate  argument  in  presenting  his 
side,  and  after  he  had  finished  and  when  Mr.  Ryan's 
turn  had  come,  he  arose  and  simply  said:  "Mr. 
Referee,  the  byes  want  an  increase."  Upon  getting 
back  to  Ashtabula  Mr.  Hanna  said  to  me:  "I  think 
we  will  have  no  difficulty  in  getting  a  verdict  in  our 
favor, for  no  argument  was  made  on  the  other  side." 
But  he  had  hardly  finished  telling  me  this  before  he 
was  called  to  the  telephone  and  informed  that  "the 
'byes'  had  it."  (Laughter.) 

I  have  nothing  further  to  say  except  that  I  am 
very  glad  to  testify  that  for  three  years  this  has 
worked  very  satisfactorily  and  a  great  deal  better 
than  before.  I  hope  it  may  continue  to  work  as 
satisfactorily  hereafter. 

MR.  GOMPERS:  We  shall  now  hear  an  address  by 
Mr.  Daniel  Keefe,  president  of  the  International 
Longshoremen's  Association,  representing  the  long- 
shoremen themselves.  (Applause.) 

MR.  KEEFE:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  am  in  favor  of 
annual  trade  agreements,  the  meeting  of  employers 
and  workers  and  adjusting  their  differences.  How- 
ever, in  order  that  the  workers  may  be  able  to  present 
a  practical  argument,  it  is  necessary  that  all  the  men 
of  that  particular  trade  or  calling  be  a  part  of  the 
organization ;  for  if  we  expect  to  get  conditions  for  the 
men,  we  must  be  able  to  represent  all  the  men,  and 
say  to  the  employers  that  they  are  a  part  of  the  or- 
ganization. 

Our  agreements  date  back  for  several  years;   I  am 


304 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


not  aware  of  any  violation  of  them.  Mr.  Mathers  has 
referred  to  an  instance  that  occurred  four  years  ago, 
which  is  true  in  a  sense,  but  an  amicable  understand- 
ing was  arrived  at ;  and  since  that  time  the  employ- 
ers and  workers  have  seen  the  advisability  of  meeting 
once  each  year  for  the  purpose  of  renewing  those 
agreements.  We  do  not  issue  ultimatums,  nor  do 
we  encourage  the  other  fellow  to  do  so.  We  take 
the  position  that  if  we  are  not  able  to  present  suffi- 
cient arguments  showing  why  our  demands  should  be 
complied  with,  we  are  not  entitled  to  the  changes 
asked  for.  (Applause.)  We  acknowledge  the  em- 
ployer has  a  perfect  right  to  present  such  argument 
as  he  deems  in  keeping  with  his  side  of  the  question, 
showing  that  the  conditions  will  not  admit  of  his 
complying  with  our  demands.  We  have,  perhaps, 
established  a  different  system  than  most  business 
organizations,  for  ours  is  a  business  organization. 
First,  we  have  every  man  in  the  organization,  from 
the  low  wage-worker  to  the  very  highest  and  best 
paid  man  on  the  Lakes,  whether  he  be  an  engineer, 
fireman,  captain,  or  longshoreman,  whose  work  is 
directly  or  indirectly  connected  with  the  dock  or 
water  front  work.  When  the  time  arrives  to  make 
our  annual  agreements,  there  are  notices  sent  out 
from  the  general  office  to  the  different  locals  inter- 
ested, to  elect  delegates  to  the  conference.  Those 
delegates  are  obliged  to  bring  credentials  from  their 
local  organizations,  showing  that  they  have  agreed 
to  whatever  understanding  may  be  arrived  at  the 
conference.  The  delegates  have  absolute  power  to 
make  such  agreements,  as  they  deem  best  for  the 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  305 

men.  After  we  get  together,  as  Mr.  Mather  well  said, 
there  are  several  days  devoted  to  general  discussion. 
After  that  we  have  the  convention,  and  select  a  com- 
mittee to  meet  with  the  employers.  The  satisfac- 
tory feature  of  it,  however,  is  that  there  are  some 
hundred  and  twenty  delegates  present,  and  you  can- 
not constitute  a  committee  of  that  number.  The 
committee  is  composed  of  five,  as  a  rule,  but  as  the 
hundred  and  twenty  have  discussed  the  matter  pro 
and  con  for  some  time,  and  understand  the  situation 
very  well  from  data  and  different  reports  of  the  cost 
of  production,  transportation,  and  other  costs, 
among  themselves — before  the  committee  has  arrived 
at  an  understanding  or  an  agreement  with  the  em- 
ployers— the  delegates  have  a  general  idea  of  what  it 
is  going  to  be.  We  do  not  return  to  our  convention 
and  report  that  we  have  done  something  subject  to 
its  approval.  It  is  natural  for  the  working-people 
to  suppose  that  all  that  is  required  of  their  committee 
is  to  prepare  their  demand,  present  it  to  the  employer, 
and  have  it  signed  and  returned.  But  through  these 
discussions  we  have  been  able  to  bring  out  the  strong 
and  the  weak  features  of  our  side  of  our  demands. 

We  have  no  strikes,  it  has  been  well  said,  for  this 
reason:  Every  man  is  a  part  of  the  agreement, 
whether  he  handles  lumber,  coal  or  iron  ore;  or  is 
an  engineer,  hoister  or  fireman,  or  whether  he  is  an 
elevator  employee  or  tug  captain.  That,  of  course, 
prevents  any  misunderstanding.  Our  agreements  pro- 
vide that  any  question  arising  not  covered  by  the 
agreement  must  be  adjusted  by  some  method  of 
arbitration  which  is  provided  for.  There  is  no  get- 


3o6  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

ting  away  from  that;  if  a  question  does  arise  which 
can  be  only  of  a  detailed  nature,  or  of  no  great  mo- 
ment, the  committee  on  arbitration  will  adjust  it,  the 
work  continuing,  and  both  sides  abide  by  the  de- 
cision. 

We  have  had  during  the  last  year  two  important 
strikes  that  we  were  indirectly  interested  in.  One 
was  at  Algiers,  La.,  with  the  freight-handlers  em- 
ployed by  the  Southern  Pacific;  the  other  was  the 
Great  Lakes  tug  strike.  The  first  was  settled  through 
your  chairman  communicating  with  a  member  of  the 
board,  Mr.  Krutschnitt,  vice-president  of  the  Southern 
Pacific,  who  took  the  matter  up  with  myself,  when  I 
was  on  the  Pacific  Coast,  where  arrangements  for 
conference  were  made,  and  it  required  only  a  very 
short  time  to  adjust  the  difference  satisfactorily  to 
both  sides. 

The  tug  strike  was  of  considerable  importance ;  both 
sides  contended  they  were  right.  The  commerce  of 
the  Lakes  was  being  interfered  with.  Your  chair- 
man made  an  effort  to  get  both  parties  together,  but 
at  first  failed ;  there  was  more  or  less  correspondence 
passed  between  your  chairman  and  our  office.  The 
commerce  was  being  interfered  with  to  such  an  ex- 
tent that  something  must  be  done.  We  had  some 
thirty-seven  thousand  men  who  came  directly  in 
contact  with  the  handling  of  the  cargoes  carried  or 
transported  from  one  place  to  another.  However, 
we  did  not  become  involved  in  the  strike.  Our  folks 
realized  they  had  agreements,  and  they  must  be  car- 
ried out.  Every  member  of  the  organization  is  fur- 
nished with  a  copy  of  the  agreement  in  book  form, 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


3°7 


which  he  carries  with  him;  the  rules  of  the  organi- 
zation are  that  he  must  have  a  copy  with  him  at  all 
times,  so  that  if  a  question  arises  he  can  take  out  his 
book  of  agreement  and  see  what  is  expected  of  him, 
and  in  this  way  no  friction  will  occur.  The  tug  strike 
was  finally  brought  to  a  satisfactory  settlement  through 
your  chairman.  One  of  the  conditions  is  that  future 
agreements  will  be  entered  into.  The  tugmen  are 
now  a  part  of  our  organization,  and  we  do  not  look 
for  any  future  trouble;  there  has  been  no  friction 
whatsoever  since  the  agreement  has  been  made. 
The  same  is  true  of  all  the  Lake  interests,  and  is  true 
largely  of  the  Pacific  Coast.  We  have  agreements 
with  the  important  interests  there  along  the  same 
line.  We  have  been  able  to  reduce  the  number  of 
hours  of  labor,  and  in  some  instances  have  advanced 
the  wages.  Yet,  while  the  employers  were  very  deter- 
mined against  both  of  these  conditions,  the  one  thing 
that  seemed  to  appease  them  was,  that  after  they 
had  entered  into  an  agreement  with  us,  they  were 
satisfied  that  it  would  be  carried  out  in  both  letter 
and  spirit. 

The  Civic  Federation — and  as  a  member  of  it  I 
just  want  to  say  a  word  or  two  regarding  it — the 
policy  pursued  by  it  has  been  the  policy  of  our  or- 
ganization for  many  years,  and  we  are  very  much 
pleased  to  know  that  there  is  an  organization  like 
the  Civic  Federation,  and  that  it  has  taken  the  broad 
view  of  having  the  employer  and  employee  meet  with 
each  other,  and  encourage  them  to  enter  into  annual 
agreements.  (Applause.) 

I  made  a  report  to  our  last  convention  at  Chicago 


3o8  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

on  the  policy  of  the  Civic  Federation.  I  took  the 
position  that  if  the  Civic  Federation  was  a  good  thing, 
or  its  policy  was  good,  all  the  workers  ought  to  know 
it,  and  I  submitted  to  them  the  subject  for  their  con- 
sideration, and  I  am  pleased  to  say  that  it  was  ap- 
proved of,  and  the  executive  office  was  instructed  to 
have  a  representative  at  each  meeting  that  the  Civic 
Federation  might  hold.  I  want  to  take  a  moment  or 
two  of  your  time  to  read  an  extract  from  my  report 
to  our  own  organization,  and  I  think  that  you  will 
understand  the  policy  of  our  association. 

I  cannot  do  better  than  to  quote  from  my  report 
to  the  eleventh  annual  convention  of  our  organiza- 
tiou,  held  in  Chicago,  July,  this  year,  relative  to  the 
aims  and  of  the  National  Civic  Federation,  as 
well  as  its  recommendations,  especially  on  annual 
agreements. 

"Since  our  last  convention,  I  have  been  honored  by 
an  appointment  on  the  National  Board  of  Conciliation 
and  Arbitration,  as  a  representative  of  organized 
labor.  The  board  is  composed  of  thirty-six  members, 
namely,  twelve  employers  of  national  reputation, 
twelve  members  of  leading  international  labor  unions, 
and  twelve  citizens  who  in  the  past  have  taken 
active  interest  in  questions  of  public  concern,  espe- 
cially those  questions  of  a  social  and  economic  char- 
acter. 

"The  purpose  and  object  of  this  organization  I  pro- 
pose to  explain,  and  place  before  the  rank  and  file 
of  our  members,  in  an  intelligent  and  exhaustive 
treatment,  as  far  as  my  ability  will  permit,  to  the  end 
that  each  and  every  member  may  have  a  thorough 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  309 

and  comprehensive  understanding  of  the  subject,  so 
as  to  enable  one  and  all  not  only  to  give  an  intelligent 
explanation  of  the  same,  but  also  to  be  able  to  defend, 
if  need  be,  our  position  from  the  assaults  of  the  un- 
thinking or  schemes  of  the  extremists — who  would 
annihilate  and  destroy  everything  that  would  tend 
towards  a  peaceful  solution  of  the  relations  between 
capital  and  labor. 

"The  purpose  and  object  of  the  Board  of  Conciliation 
and  Arbitration  is  to  bring  about  the  amicable  ad- 
justment of  any  and  all  differences  that  arise  between 
capital  and  labor.  While  the  organization  possesses 
no  legal  right  to  enforce  any  of  its  decisions  or 
findings,  yet  the  force  of  public  opinion  is  all-powerful 
in  enforcing  justice  and  right,  and  can  mitigate  the 
evils  of  industrial  contests,  placing  blame  of  oppres- 
sion on  the  shoulders  where  it  properly  belongs,  and 
becoming  a  most  potent  social  force  in  the  adjust- 
ment of  disputes  between  employer  and  employee. 

"My  conviction  has  been  for  years  that  if  the  great 
mass  of  the  public  had  an  opportunity  of  thoroughly 
understanding  the  origin,  cause  and  nature  of  most 
of  the  differences  that  arise  between  capital  and 
labor,  it  would  certainly  redound  to  the  benefit  of  the 
workers.  The  wage-worker  is  frequently  repre- 
sented as  an  unruly,  arbitrary  and  unreasonable 
being,  whereas  if  the  light  of  public  opinion  were 
thrown  upon  the  controversy,  it  would  demonstrate 
the  reverse,  and  show  the  other  fellow  was  unjust. 

Those  of  us  who  have  been  in  the  movement  prior 
to  the  formation  of  the  I.  L.  M.  &  T.  A.,  say  twenty 
years,  can  distinctly  remember,  that  if  the  press  or 


3io  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

public  at  that  time  had  any  notice  of  a  labor  dispute 
or  difficulty,  there  was  but  one  side,  and  that  of  the 
employer,  and  all  differences,  no  matter  how  honest 
the  difference,  all  believed  should  be  settled  by  the 
policeman's  club. 

1 '  Public  sentiment  is  unquestionably  stronger  than 
any  law,  and  has  awakened  the  public  to  a  higher 
sense  of  duty,  that  will  to-day  hearken  to  the  voice 
of  the  toiler,  who  cries  out  not  for  charity,  but  insists 
on  justice  as  the  natural  reward  of  industry  and  in- 
telligence. The  great  progress  we  have  made  up  to 
date  is  demonstrated  in  the  belief  of  the  public,  to 
wit:  The  public  to-day  recognize,  first,  there  are  two 
sides  to  every  question;  second,  the  creation  and 
cultivation  of  social  amelioration,  and  laws  for  the 
regulation  of  the  hours  of  labor,  child  labor,  etc.; 
third,  the  fact  that  the  intelligence  of  the  wage-worker 
appreciates  the  full  meaning  of  co-operation  of 
capital  and  labor,  as  essential  to  his  own  prosperity, 
and  that  his  reward  of  a  life  of  toil  ensures  him  the 
desired  comforts  he  needs  in  his  old  age  and  the  edu- 
cation of  his  children. 

"This  appointment  upon  a  board  of  this  character  is 
certainly  a  great  compliment  to  our  organization." 

In  my  conclusion,  relative  to  how  annual  agree- 
ments can  be  brought  about,  the  reduction  of  the 
hours  of  labor,  and  eventually  the  introduction  of  the 
eight-hour  day,  I  say,  "  no  other  reform  in  my  judg- 
ment offers  the  same  wide  field  for  intelligent  effort 
or  promises  the  same  practical  and  lasting  benefits  to 
society  in  general. 

"  The   trades   union   movement,  like  the  mariner, 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  31 1 

never  loses  sight  of  its  objective  point,  or  its  promised 
haven,  and  while  the  radical  and  conservative  alike 
have  places  side  by  side  in  its  ranks,  and  while  at 
times  some  spasmodic  outburst  may  seem  to  have 
clouded  the  course  of  the  mariner,  yet  the  good  ship 
is  steered  through  the  fog  and  continues  her  course 
unerringly 

"  We  cherish  the  hope  that  through  the  intelligent 
efforts  of  organized  labor,  assisted  and  encouraged 
by  an  enlightened  public  opinion,  the  day  is  not  far 
distant  when  the  hopes  of  the  toiler  relative  to  the 
shorter  work-day  will  be  realized. 

"  The  cardinal  or  fundamental  idea  of  the  National 
Civic  Federation  is  one  that  our  organization  can, 
with  pride,  boast  of  being  one  of  the  pioneers,  namely, 
the  signing  of  annual  agreements  or  contracts. 
Long  years  ago,  prior  to  the  organization  of  the  I.  L. 
M.  &  T.  A.,  our  local  unions  favored  this  method,  and, 
I  might  add,  without  appearing  egotistical,  that  our 
great  success  and  the  respect  that  we  command  as  an 
international  organization  is  due  primarily  to  the  fact 
that  we  entered  into  agreements  and  religiously  re- 
spected and  recognized  our  honor  in  every  respect. 

"  The  I.  L.  M.  &  T.  A.  has  made  gigantic  strides 
since  its  organization  ten  years  ago,  and  our  tenth 
annual  anniversary  cannot  be  better  celebrated  than 
by  looking  backward  over  the  past  ten  years,  and  in  a 
calm  and  reflective  mood  studying  the  causes  that  have 
been  instrumental  in  promoting  our  great  progress, 
from  a  few  feeble  isolated  local  unions,  into  the  mag- 
nificent international  organization  of  over  seventy 
thousand  members,  represented  by  you  as  delegates 


3i2  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE 

to  this  convention.  And  to-day  we  can  point  with 
pride  to  the  fact  that  we  never  made  an  agreement 
and  then  broken  it,  notwithstanding  that  at  times  un- 
wise or  unprofitable  contracts  have  been  made. 
We  challenge  any  person  to  prove  any  case  wherein 
we  violated  the  same.  We  took  our  medicine  and 
charged  it  up  to  profit  and  loss.  (Laughter.)  In  the 
present  condition  of  society  it  is  absurd  to  expect 
wage- workers  to  work  without  organization,  and  a 
great  reflection  on  our  system  of  public  education, 
to  say  that  intelligence  will  not  rule  in  the  delibera- 
tions and  meetings  of  organized  labor,  and  the  whole- 
sale indictment  that  there  is  an  entire  lack  of  honor 
among  the  rank  and  file,  who  will  repudiate  any 
agreement  or  contract  not  to  their  liking.  These  are 
but  the  utterances  of  those  who  declare  they  have 
nothing  to  arbitrate,  and  who  have  a  divine  right  to 
the  earnings  of  their  fellow-man.  Were  employers 
to  treat  with  labor  organizations  as  a  collection  of 
rational  human  beings,  who  recognize  their  labor  as 
their  capital,  and  who  desire  to  sell  the  same  to  the 
best  possible  advantage — in  a  word,  if  common  sense 
were  applied,  with  a  proper  spirit  of  compromise,  it 
would  effect  a  lasting  and  permanent  solution  of  the 
relations  of  capital  and  labor." 

MR.  GOMPERS:  We  shall  now  hear  from  Mr.  Fred- 
erick T.  Towne,  president  of  the  National  Founders' 
Association,  the  association  of  molding  foundries, 
which  has,  and  has  had  for  the  past  six  years  an 
agreement  with  the  Iron  Molders'  Union  of  North 
America,  and  a  most  satisfactory  one  to  both  sides, 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  313 

I  am  informed.  I  have  the  pleasure  of  introducing 
Mr.  Towne.  (Applause.) 

MR.  FREDERICK  T.  TOWNE:  Mr.  Chairman  and 
Gentlemen  of  the  Convention — I  have  been  particu- 
larly interested  in  the  remarks  of  the  speakers  this 
afternoon,  because  they  have  dealt  with  the  very 
practical  part  of  a  question  which  we  are  here  to  dis- 
cuss. They  have  told  us  of  the  practical  organizations 
which  are  working  along  practical  lines  in  a  manner  to 
give  practical  results — at  least,  we  should  judge  so 
from  the  statements  they  have  made.  And  I  know, 
as  far  as  our  association  is  concerned,  that  it  has  ac- 
complished practical  results,  which  were  not  bene- 
ficial merely  to  the  founders  of  the  country,  but  to 
the  molders  as  represented  through  the  molders' 
union.  I  will  present  to  you  in  a  very  few  words  the 
work  of  our  organization,  as  it  has  been  the  secretary's 
request  that  I  should  do  so. 

Your  secretary  has  asked  me  to  speak  a  few  words 
concerning  the  relations  existing  between  the  National 
Foxmders'  Association,  which  I  have  the  honor  to 
represent,  and  the  Iron  Molders'  Union  of  North 
America.  It  occurs  to  me  that  it  might  not  be  amiss 
to  preface  these  remarks  with  a  brief  explanation  to 
those  who  are  not  familiar  with  the  facts,  of  the  scope 
and  objects  of  the  National  Founders'  Association, 
what  it  represents,  and  what  it  has  accomplished. 

An  association  of  employers  operating  foundries, 
either  exclusively  or  as  an  adjunct  to  their  main  busi- 
ness; an  association  which  has  for  its  objects  the 
establishment  of  a  uniform  basis  for  just  and  equi- 
table dealings  between  its  members  and  their  em- 


314  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE 

ployees,  whereby  the  interests  of  both  will  be  properly 
protected;  an  association  which  has  a  membership 
of  500,  i.  e.,  firms  or  corporations  having  a  collective 
capital  of  over  $300,000,000,  and  employing  27,000 
men  in  the  foundry  trades;  an  association  founded 
six  years  ago,  which  has  steadily  increased  in  mem- 
bership, strength  and  usefulness  until  it  has  not  only 
justified  the  hopes  and  expectations  of  its  founders, 
but  has  demonstrated  to  the  foundry  industry  of  the 
country  that  the  existence  of  such  an  organization 
is  the  best  assurance  which  its  members  can  obtain 
of  industrial  peace  in  their  foundries;  this,  in  brief, 
gentlemen,  i^'  what  the  National  Founders'  Associa- 
tion represents. 

The  means  employed  to  accomplish  this  end  have 
been  many  and  varied,  but  the  underlying  motive 
has  always  been  the  firm  conviction  that  the  success- 
ful solution  of  the  so-called  "labor  question"  can 
only  be  reached  by  dealing  with  it  in  the  spirit  of 
justice  and  broad-mindedness,  and  with  due  regard 
to  the  interests  of  both  parties  to  the  issue. 

The  Association  has  had  to  contend  with  many 
difficulties  during  the  formative  period,  the  greatest 
being  to  awaken  an  interest  in  the  work  and  an 
appreciation  of  the  necessity  that  exists  for  combined 
action  on  the  part  of  employers  in  order  properly  to 
protect  their  interests.  But  the  net  result  of  each 
year's  work  has  been  progress — progress  along  the 
lines  of  a  better  understanding  between  employer  and 
employee.  This,  I  understand,  is  the  chief  purpose 
sougkt  to  be  accomplished  by  the  industrial  depart- 
ment of  the  National  Civic  Federation,  and  is,  indeed, 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE 


315 


the  condition  which  all  thinking  employers  and  em- 
ployees alike,  whether  they  be  organized  or  not,  are 
seeking  to  establish. 

The  question,  therefore,  which  concerns  us  all,  and 
particularly  the  employers  of  the  country,  is  how  best 
can  this  condition  of  mutual  confidence  and  under- 
standing with  our  employees  be  brought  about? 
What  practical  plan  can  be  adopted  to  attain  this 
end?  As  already  stated,  the  National  Founders' 
Association  believes  that  the  first  step  is  to  meet 
organization  with  organization — not  for  the  purpose 
of  attack  or  oppression,  but  rather  for  co-operation. 
We  believe  that  in  consequence  of  the  organization 
of  labor,  it  is  incumbent  upon  the  employers  similarly 
to  organize,  for  no  matter  how  high-principled  an 
organization  may  be,  nor  how  conservative  its  policy, 
there  is  a  danger  that  it  will,  if  unrestrained,  impose 
unfair  conditions  upon  the  unorganized,  and  therefore 
weaker,  body,  whether  it  be  employer  or  employee. 
On  the  other  hand,  with  both  sides  organized,  there 
exists  a  mutual  respect  on  the  part  of  each  for  the 
other  which  tends  to  minimize  unjust  or  unreasonable 
action  by  either  party.  There  is,  furthermore,  a 
sense  of  responsibility,  conservatism  and  stability  in 
an  organization,  which  is  oftentimes  lacking  in  the 
individual,  and  a  better  realization  of  the  fact  that 
the  relation  between  capital  and  labor  is  reciprocal, 
and  that  no  adjustment  of  a  dispute  arising  between 
them  can  be  just  or  permanent  unless  settled  with 
due  consideration  to  the  interests  of  both  parties. 

It  was  a  realization  of  this  fact — the  importance 
of  organization — which  led  the  foundry  men  to  form 


3i6  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

the  National  Founders'  Association,  and  the  same 
motives  which  prompted  them  to  organize  have  like- 
wise appealed  to  employers  in  other  lines  of  in- 
dustry, until  to-day  it  is  safe  to  predict  that  the  time 
is  not  far  distant  when  the  employers  of  this  country 
will  be  as  effectively  and  usefully  organized  in  all 
trades  as  the  men  whom  they  employ.  We  are 
pioneers  in  this  new  field  of  organization.  Our 
methods  are  doubtless  still  crude  and  the  results  slow 
of  accomplishment,  but  we  have  conviction  in  the 
wisdom  of  the  general  policy,  and  faith  that  upon 
these  broad  lines  the  labor  question  may  be  solved. 

The  methods  pursued  by  the  National  Founders' 
Association  in  conducting  its  affairs  are  interesting 
as  illustrating  what  has  proved  to  be  a  thoroughly 
practical  scheme  of  employers'  organization.  But 
the  time  at  my  disposal  is  too  short  to  permit  of 
detailed  description.  I  will  say,  however,  that  the 
control  of  the  affairs  of  the  association  is  vested  in 
the  hands  of  the  executive  officers  and  a  Council 
of  eighteen  members  representing  different  districts 
into  which  the  country  is  arbitrarily  divided.  The 
Council  meets  quarterly,  or  oftener  if  necessary, 
and  in  the  interim  its  authority  is  vested  in  the 
executive  officers  and  a  commissioner,  who  with  a 
trained  corps  of  assistants  conducts  the  detail  work 
of  the  association.  In  the  event  of  a  labor  disturb- 
ance occurring  in  the  foundry  of  one  of  our  members 
which  he  is  unable  to  adjust  to  the  satisfaction  of 
himself  and  his  employees,  he  refers  the  case  to  the 
commissioner  as  representing  the  association,  with 
the  request  that  he  investigate  the  issue  and  en- 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


317 


deavor  to  reach  a  settlement  which  will  be  mutually 
acceptable.  If  this  effort  should  fail  the  case  is  re- 
ferred to  a  committee  of  arbitration  composed  of 
three  representatives  of  each  side  of  the  controversy, 
and  not  unless  this  committee  fails  to  agree  does  any 
cessation  of  work  occur  at  the  instance  of  either 
party,  nor  is  recourse  taken  to  the  more  drastic 
measures  of  strike  or  lockout. 

This  brings  me  to  the  subject  of  this  paper,  viz: 
the  relations  existing  between  the  Iron  Molders' 
Union  of  North  America  and  the  National  Founders' 
Association,  for  without  an  explanation  of  these 
relations  the  plan  of  procedure  in  the  event  of  a 
labor  disturbance  occurring  in  a  member's  shop  is 
not  readily  understood. 

A  few  years  after  the  National  Founders'  Asso- 
ciation was  organized  it  became  evident  to  both 
members  of  the  association  and  to  the  Iron  Holders' 
Union  of  North  America  that  unless  some  under- 
standing was  reached  between  the  two  organizations 
they  would  be  in  a  continual  state  of  warfare ;  there- 
fore in  the  year  1899,  a  joint  conference  was  held 
and  as  a  result  of  much  discussion  a  resolution  was 
passed  recommending  the  adoption  of  a  joint  agree- 
ment between  the  two  associations.  This  recom- 
mendation was  afterwards  approved  by  the  mem- 
bers of  both  organizations  and  the  agreement  duly 
ratified.  To  say  that  this  was  the  most  important 
action  ever  taken  individually  or  collectively  by 
either  of  these  two  associations  is,  I  believe,  not 
overstating  the  fact.  Indeed,  it  is  not  too  much  to 
say  that  it  was  of  great  significance  to  every  in- 


3i8  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

dustry  of  the  country  as  an  indication  of  the  pro- 
gressive tendency  of  the  times  and  as  an  example 
of  what  could  be  accomplished  by  the  co-operation 
of  organizations  representing  employers  and  em- 
ployees. This  understanding,  which  has  since  been 
known  as  the  "New  York  Agreement,"  has  been  the 
means  of  averting  many  serious  strikes  and  untold 
loss  to  both  parties.  The  adoption  of  the  agreement 
was  such  a  notable  step  in  advance,  and  its  applica- 
tion has  proved  to  be  of  so  great  mutual  benefit, 
that  I  believe  it  would  be  of  interest  to  quote  the 
resolutions  in  full. 

"WHEREAS,  the  past  experience  of  the  members 
of  the  National  Founders'  Association  and  the  Iron 
Holders'  Union  of  North  America,  justifies  them  in 
the  opinion  that  any  arrangement  entered  into  that 
will  conduce  to  the  greater  harmony  of  their  rela- 
tions as  employers  and  employees,  will  be  to  their 
mutual  advantage;  therefore,  be  it 

"Resolved,  That  this  Committee  of  Conference 
endorse  the  principle  of  arbitration  in  the  settle- 
ment of  trades  disputes,  and  recommend  the  same 
for  adoption  by  the  members  of  the  National  Foun- 
ders' Association  and  the  Iron  Molders'  Union  of 
North  America,  on  the  following  lines: 

"That  in  the  event  of  a  dispute  arising  between 
members  of  the  respective  organizations,  a  reasonable 
effort  shall  be  made  by  the  parties  directly  at  inter- 
est to  effect  a  satisfactory  adjustment  of  the  diffi- 
culty; failing  to  do  which,  either  party  shall  have 
the  right  to  ask  its  reference  to  a  committee  of  ar- 
bitration, which  shall  consist  of  the  presidents  of  the 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  319 

National  Founders'  Association  and  the  Iron  Mold- 
crs'  Union  of  North  America,  or  their  representatives, 
and  two  other  representatives  from  each  association 
appointed  by  the  respective  presidents. 

"The  finding  of  this  committee  of  arbitration,  by 
a  majority  vote,  shall  be  considered  final  in  so  far 
as  the  future  action  of  the  respective  organizations 
is  concerned. 

"Pending  adjudication  by  the  committee  on  ar- 
bitration there  shall  be  no  cessation  of  work  at  the 
instance  of  either  party  to  the  dispute. 

"The  committee  of  arbitration  shall  meet  within 
two  weeks  after  the  reference  of  the  dispute  to  them." 

It  will  thus  be  seen  that  in  the  event  of  trouble 
occurring  between  members  of  the  two  associations, 
open  hostilities  may  be  prevented;  indeed,  even 
cessation  of  work  at  the  instance  of  either  party  may 
be  avoided  until  the  case  has  been  thoroughly  inves- 
tigated and  an  attempt  made  to  settle  the  difference 
amicably.  Surely  no  words  of  mine  are  necessary 
to  impress  upon  this  body  the  importance  and  far 
reaching  consequences  of  such  an  agreement.  We 
all  know  that  the  object  most  to  be  desired  in  the 
settlement  of  any  controversy  is  that  time  should 
be  allowed  to  enable  the  parties  in  dispute  to  inves- 
tigate and  understand  thoroughly  both  sides  of  the 
question.  Truce  once  established,  a  settlement  is 
much  more  likely  to  be  reached  when  the  principals 
have  had  an  opportunity  to  consider  calmly  and 
dispassionately  the  claims  of  the  other  side.  And 
finally,  if  it  becomes  necessary  to  refer  the  dispute 
to  a  committee  of  arbitration,  there  is  a  strong 


320 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


probability  that  by  means  of  outside  influences  an 
agreement  can  be  reached  which  will  be  acceptable 
to  the  parties  at  issue.  Experience  has  proved 
this  to  be  the  case  between  the  National  Founders' 
Association  and  the  Iron  Holders'  Union,  and  it  is 
gratifying  to  state  that  although  there  have  been 
instances  where  the  terms  of  the  New  York  Agree- 
ment, were  not  adhered  to,  they  are  the  rare  excep- 
tions. 

In  addition  to  the  practical  results  accomplished 
by  the  New  York  Agreement,  it  has  also  made  pos- 
sible a  better  understanding  between  the  governing 
boards  of  the  two  associations  on  many  issues  which 
are  necessarily  constantly  arising  between  the  two 
bodies.  Growing  out  of  the  mutual  confidence 
inspired  by  the  original  joint  conference,  there 
have  been  other  conferences  held  to  consider  and 
if  possible  formulate  other  agreements  to  govern 
the  two  organizations  on  matters  relating  to  the 
mutual  welfare  of  their  members. 

Among  the  more  important  subjects  discussed 
may  be  mentioned  a  national  wage  agreement; 
a  shorter  work-day;  the  establishment  of  more 
equitable  conditions  relating  to  apprentices;  re- 
striction of  output;  limitation  of  a  man's  earning 
capacity ;  the  abolition  of  a  flat  minimum  wage  rate ; 
the  establishment  of  a  differential  wage  rate  for 
molders,  and  many  other  issues  of  a  similar  nature. 

As  might  be  expected,  these  conferences  have 
oftentimes  led  to  no  practical  results,  but  they 
have  been  educational  to  both  parties  and  as  such 
have  been  of  great  value.  Progress  has  been  slow 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


321 


but  none  the  less  sure,  and  the  disposition  evidenced 
by  both  sides  to  give  full  consideration  to  the  claims 
of  the  other,  and  the  openly  expressed  desire  to 
reach  a  settlement  on  the  many  points  of  difference 
which  will  be  mutually  acceptable,  is  the  best  as- 
surance that  the  day  is  not  far  distant  when  many 
of  these  issues  will  be  adjusted  to  the  satisfaction 
of  both  organizations. 

This  very  brief  statement  of  the  relations  existing 
between  two  organizations  representing  employers 
in  the  foundry  industry,  and  of  the  results  which 
have  been  accomplished  in  a  short  space  of  time, 
should  make  evident  even  to  the  skeptic  the  benefit 
to  be  derived  by  co-operation  between  two  such 
representative  bodies  in  any  industry.  It  is  a  fact, 
however,  that  although  the  truth  of  this  statement 
is  to-day  generally  admitted  by  the  employer,  many 
fail  to  act  or  profit  by  it.  The  apathy  and  indiffer- 
ence of  the  employer  to  this  subject  is  astounding 
and  does  not  reflect  credit  upon  his  intelligence  or 
breadth  of  view.  He  apparently  believes  that  he 
can  better  afford  to  give  his  time  and  attention  to 
the  conduct  of  his  immediate  business  rather  than 
to  lend  his  services  or  even  his  sympathy  to  a  move- 
ment which  has  merely  a  general  bearing  upon  his 
affairs.  He  is  content  to  let  others  bear  the  brunt 
of  the  battle  and  carry  forward  the  work  through 
the  early  and  difficult  formative  period  until  success- 
is  assured,  and  then  step  in  to  enjoy  the  fruits  of 
their  labor. 

Fortunately  this  attitude  of  mind  is  becoming 
less  and  less  apparent  in  this  country  to-day.  There 


322  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

seems  to  be  a  rapidly  increasing  disposition  on  the 
part  of  employers  to  study  the  problem  and  to  assist 
in  its  solution  by  joining  with  their  fellow  employ- 
ers in  devising  means  to  that  end. 

It  seems  to  me  that  in  this  field  the  National 
Civic  Federation  can  be  particularly  helpful  to  the 
industries  of  the  country  and  can  accomplish  much 
good.  With  its  splendidly  representative  exe- 
cutive committee  it  can  create  public  opinion  and 
exert  a  strong  and  widespread  influence.  It  is  an 
independent  and  disinterested  body,  and  its  recom- 
mendations carry  great  weight.  I  hope,  therefore, 
you  may  see  fit  to  use  this  power  to  urge  upon  em- 
ployers in  all  lines  of  industry  the  merit  of  organ- 
ization, to  impress  upon  them  the  fact  that  by  or- 
ganization the  employer  may  derive  many  of  the 
benefits  which  have  heretofore  been  obtained  by 
labor  alone.  By  such  means  and  under  such  con- 
ditions much  of  the  present  uncertainty  surround- 
ing conditions  and  employment  of  labor  may  be 
removed,  and  co-operation  and  mutual  confidence 
established .  ( Applause . ) 

The  following  is  an  extract  from  a  letter  received 
by  the  Secretary  of  the  Civic  Federation  from  Mr. 
Jas.  F.  Valentine,  vice-president  of  the  International 
Holders'  Union: 

I  take  pleasure  in  expressing  myself  as  being  per- 
sonally in  hearty  accord  with  all  attempts  to  avoid 
labor  conflicts,  and  believe  that  the  policy  of  con- 
ciliation is  much  the  best  adapted  for  this  purpose 
and  brings  about  more  satisfactory  results.  As 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


323 


Mr.  Fox  has  told  you,  in  the  past  we  have  had  an 
experience  of  eleven  years  with  the  Stove  Founders' 
National  Defense  Association,  under  an  agreement 
which  provides  for  the  decision  of  a  committee  of 
conciliation,  erroneously  called  a  committee  of 
arbitration  by  some,  before  any  rupture  can  take 
place.  So  successfully  have  the  two  associations 
conducted  their  business  since  this  agreement  be- 
came operative,  that  it  affords  me  pleasure  to  say 
not  one  strike  has  occurred  to  disturb  the  contin- 
uous harmony. 

Since  1899  we  have  had  dealings  with  the  National 
Founders'  Association  under  a  similar  form  of  agree- 
ment and  have,  on  the  whole,  been  fairly  successful 
in  preventing  many  serious  industrial  disputes. 
We  have  not  yet  reached  the  ideal  stage  in  which  it 
can  be  said,  with  absolute  assurance,  that  there 
is  no  possibility  of  conflict,  for,  unfortunately, 
there  are  many  points  of  difference  yet  unsolved 
between  employer  and  employee,  not  only  in  the 
foundry  industry  but  in  practically  all  others.  These 
points  involve  cardinal  principles,  and  I  feel  that  I 
am  not  going  beyond  the  truth  when  I  say  that 
both  sides  require  further  education  before  we  can 
hope  to  reach  a  complete  understanding.  There 
are  certain  inalienable  rights  both  of  employer  and 
employee,  that  must  be  clearly  denned  and  under- 
stood before  industrial  peace  can  be  assured.  Not- 
withstanding that  fact,  however,  which  is  patent 
to  all  who  give  the  subject  any  consideration,  I 
remain  firmly  of  the  belief  that  any  joint  agreement 
which  carries  with  it  the  obligation  to  bring  contend- 


3*4 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


ing  parties  together,  is  in  the  best  interest  of  all 
concerned,  in  the  best  interest  of  the  industry  with 
which  they  are  identified,  and  in  the  best  interest 
of  the  community  at  large.  Sentimental  objections 
to  recognition  of  a  labor  organization  as  such,  are, 
in  my  estimation,  serious  bars  to  the  success  of  this 
policy,  and  it  appears  to  me  no  employer  nor  asso- 
ciation of  employers  compromise  their  position, 
weaken  their  case,  or  injure  their  rights  in  any  de- 
gree, by  recognizing  the  rights  of  their  employees 
to  organize,  and  to  do  business  through  their  organ- 
ization and  its  authorized  representatives.  If  there 
were  no  labor  organization,  there  could  be  no  con- 
ciliation nor  arbitration,  and  I  am  in  hopes  that 
such  meetings  as  those  that  are  now  being  held 
under  the  auspices  of  the  National  Civic  Federation 
will  assist  materially  in  clearing  up  this  point  at  least. 
Mr.  Hanna  here  entered  and  assumed  the  chair 
during  the  remainder  of  the  session. 

CHAIRMAN  HANNA:  I  will  next  call  on  Mr.  M.  M. 
Garland,  of  Pittsburg,  former  President  of  the  Amal- 
gamated Iron  and  Steel  Association.  (Applause.) 

MR.  GARLAND:  Mr.  Chairman  and  Friends — I 
came  here  as  a  listener,  and  if  I  had  had  anything 
particular  to  say  after  the  last  three  speakers,  it 
seems  to  me  I  would  be  left  without  anything  to 
add.  They  have  covered  the  ground  that  I  believe 
in.  For  thirty-six  years  the  iron  and  steel  workers 
of  this  country  have  been  meeting  with  the  employ- 
ers, year  in  and  year  out,  each  and  every  year,  and 
making  settlements  of  wages  and  conditions  for  the 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  325 

following  year.  I  have  heard  a  great  deal  of  talk 
of  the  round  table  at  this  meeting.  My  experience, 
friends,  has  been  the  long  table.  (Laughter.)  We 
meet  yearly  in  a  long  room,  with  a  long  table,  al- 
most the  length  of  the  room.  On  one  side  are  the 
representatives  of  not  thousands,  but  millions  of 
dollars  when  collectively  figured,  and  on  the  other 
side  representatives  of  thousands  upon  thousands 
of  workmen.  We  need  a  long  table  because  the 
manufacturers  find  it  necessary  at  times  to  come 
forward  and  pound,  and  then  we  go  forward  and 
pound,  and  sometimes  both  sides  are  pounding  the 
table  at  once.  And  in  other  instances  we  even  get 
on  the  table,  and  I  have  known  extreme  cases  when 
we  got  over  the  table  (laughter)  in  order  to  impress 
each  side  with  our  views  of  the  debate.  (Laughter.) 
We  bring  in  our  box  of  stogies  and  put  it  on  the 
table,  and  the  manufacturers  their  box  of  cigars 
and  put  it  on  the  same  table.  We  trade  smokes, 
and  when  the  smoke  of  the  conference  has  cleared 
away  an  agreement  signed  by  both  sides -lies  on  the 
table.  My  friends,  you  can  talk  of  these  plans  of 
settlement  all  you  please,  but  it  seems  to  me  there 
is  only  one  plan,  that  of  the  employers  and  employees 
getting  together  as  a  family  (applause)  taking  up 
the  situation  and  going  through  it  thoroughly  and 
settling  it.  Remember  when  they  get  there  to- 
gether there  are  a  lot  of  things  come  in  that  cannot 
be  introduced  into  an  outside  committee  for  arbi- 
tration, because  on  the  one  side  are  the  employers 
who  probably  were  working  men  in  the  mills  at 
one  time. 


326  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

On  the  same  side  are  the  bosses,  the  managers,  who 
with  a  very  few  exceptions  were  members  of  our 
organization,  who  were  taken  up  from  the  meetings 
of  the  conference;  who  were  taken  from  the  ranks 
of  the  workmen  and  made  managers,  because  of 
their  ability  to  thresh  out  and  fight  out  justice 
between  themselves  and  their  employers.  I  hear 
a  great  deal  of  the  idea  that  we  are  not — and  every- 
body agrees  that  we  are  not — opposed  to  organized 
labor;  that  we  believe  that  workmen  should  be 
treated  fairly;  but  how  are  you  going  to  get  a  con- 
crete plan  of  treating  them  fairly?  If  an  agreement 
is  made  without  consulting  the  workmen,  is  it  an 
agreement — oh,  no.  But  by  the  encouragement  of 
organization  of  labor  you  produce  a  concrete  form, 
a  committee  as  it  were,  who  have  charge  of  these 
affairs.  Let  me  tell  you  that  in  our  organization 
when  we  meet  as  described  by  Mr.  Keefe,  of  the 
Longshoremen,  we  thresh  over  what  we  desire  for 
the  coming  year,  and  then  we  put  it  into  the  hands 
of  a  few  men  and  say,  "Here  you  have  got  power 
to  go  and  meet  the  employers  and  make  a  settlement, 
absolute  power."  It  doesn't  matter  what  they  do, 
we  stand  for  it.  We  have  had  our  say  in  our  con- 
ventions; we  have  advised  what  we  think  is 
right,  but  we  put  on  them  the  power  and  also  the 
consequence  of  non-settlement. 

This  Civic  Federation  is  a  body  composed  for  the 
purpose,  as  I  understand  it,  of  urging  and  inciting 
settlement  of  differences  between  employer  and 
employed.  I  have  been  somewhat  surprised  at  the 
statements  made  by  some  of  the  committee,  and 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  327 

also  by  the  very  well  worded  article  written  by  the 
secretary  of  the  committee,  that  they  were  not 
intruding;  that  they  did  not  have  the  idea  of  forcing 
themselves  into  making  arrangements  unless  they 
were  invited,  but  that  they  stood  in  the  position 
of  being  willing  to.  I  want  to  say  to  you  that  this 
committee  is  all-important  to  my  mind.  It  is 
practically  a  conciliatory  board,  but  this  is  the  idea 
I  want  to  bring  out:  It  is  simply  whether  they  are 
invited  into  a  difference  that  arises  between  em- 
ployer and  employed  or  not,  when  one  of  great 
moment  occurs  this  board  is  established  for  the 
purpose  of  getting  in  there  and  assisting  settlement 
if  possible,  if  desirable.  But  refusal  on  the  part 
of  either  of  the  sides  of  the  dispute  to  permit  this 
committee  to  go  in  and  advise  sets  the  authority 
of  public  opinion  as  against  the  side  who  would  not 
permit  it.  Practically  then  it  is  an  arbitration 
committee.  I  believe  their  greatest  office  is  in  com- 
pelling settlements  along  the  line  that  I  have  de- 
scribed. The  idea  of  an  agreement  between  em- 
ployer and  employed,  without  interference  on  the 
outside,  is  strongly  urged  in  every  action  that  we 
have  seen.  For  instance,  in  the  recent  coal  strike 
a  commission,  ^o-called — "a  rose  by  any  other  name 
is  just  as  sweet ff — which  commission  was  appointed 
for  the  purpose  of  investigating.  It  might  have 
been  just  as  well  called  an  arbitration  board,  because 
that  is  its  office.  But  after  it  had  been  voluntarily 
agreed  to  by  those  who  were  most  bitterly  opposed 
to  organized  labor,  and  this  commission  no  sooner 
meets,  talks  and  brings  up  this  problem  and  starts 


328  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

in  on  its  work,  than  voluntarily  they  who  advised 
for  the  appointment  of  a  commission  now  advise 
for  a  settlement  between  themselves.  They  ask 
now.  as  I  understand  it,  if  I  am  well  informed, that 
it  be  taken  out  of  the  hands  of  this  commission 
and  that  they  settle  the  matter  themselves  between 
them  and  the  miners.  That  is  the  strongest  kind 
of  argument  for  the  old  homemade  stamp,  the  old 
style  of  getting  back  neighbor  to  neighbor,  man  to 
man,  employer  to  employee.  It  used  to  be  in  the 
mills — I  remember  it  well,  having  been  brought  up 
in  the  rolling  mills  from  the  time  I  was  a  little  pull- 
up  at  the  door  of  a  heating  furnace,  until  very  re- 
cently, having  been  associated  with  organized  labor, 
and  now  in  a  small  way  a  manufacturer  and  treating 
with  organized  labor  in  the  mills — it  used  to  be  when 
the  president  of  the  company  or  the  secretary  of 
the  company,  because  we  then  knew  them  well 
personally,  would  walk  through  the  mill  every  few 
days,  saying,  "how  are  you,  boys?"  and  shaking 
hands,  "  How  is  the  furnace  working  to-day,  how  is 
the  family,  have  a  chew  or  a  smoke?"  Something 
of  that  kind.  We  could  meet  in  conference  in 
those  days  on  a  basis  of  friendly  understanding. 
How  is  it  now?  The  stock  of  the  great  rolling  mills 
is  held  by  the  great  public.  The  owners  never  see 
the  men  who  work  the  mills.  The  only  touch  be- 
tween the  men  and  the  firm  now  is  through  the  boss 
or  manager,  and  the  system  now  under  the  com- 
binations is  to  promote  the  boss  who  brings  the 
best  returns.  Whether  he  does  it  by  lowering  the 
wages,  by  working  longer  hours,  or  what  not,  mat- 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  329 

ters  little,  so  long  as  he  brings  the  returns.  Hence 
I  say  the  competition  and  the  condition  of  the  man 
who  works  are  getting  to  that  point  where  greater 
organization  of  labor  is  necessary.  At  one  time 
there  was  a  feeling  in  common,  but  now  there  cannot 
be  anything  warmer  than  that  permitted  by  the  pro- 
motion system  to  the  boss  who  has  charge  of  the 
men,  and  who  has  little  or  no  money  invested  in  the 
concern. 

The  effort,  then,  of  the  committee,  is  to  promote 
this  plan  of  settlement.  To  my  mind  a  greater  or- 
ganization of  labor  would  be  an  excellent  plan  for 
them  to  advise,  for  the  purpose  of  bringing  about  the 
conferences  necessary  between  employers  and  em- 
ployed. 

I  have  heard  the  question  raised  as  to 
whether  a  company  may  prosper  when  they 
deal  with  organized  labor.  For  thirty-six  years  I 
want  to  say  to  you  that  a  large  number  of  the 
iron  and  steel  manufacturers  have  been  dealing 
with  their  employees  year  after  year  and  none  of 
them  that  I  know  of  have  gone  to  the  poorhouse. 
They  have  emerged  from  small  manufacturers  to 
great  manufacturers.  They  have  gone  from  the 
thousands  to  the  millions.  The  piece-work  system  is 
in  operation  throughout  the  mills,  and  I  stand  here 
to  say  that  I  think  it  is  the  only  system.  It  is  an 
agreement  entered  into  by  conferences — a  tonnage 
system  we  call  it.  You  may  call  it  piece-work;  it 
is  practically  the  same  thing.  So  much  output  for 
so  much  money,  for  the  reason  that  it  incites  the  man 
on  to  his  greatest  effort.  Leave  him  without  any  in- 


330  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

centive  of  that  kind  and  his  inclination  will  be  to 
get  along  just  as  easily  as  he  can  and  get  his  wages 
just  as  easily  as  he  can.  The  tonnage  system  was  in- 
troduced at  the  inception  of  our  agreement.  To-day, 
per  ton,  where  the  conditions  are  the  same,  the  wages 
are  twenty  per  cent,  higher  than  when  the  agreement 
was  entered  into  thirty-six  years  ago,  proving  that 
the  idea  of  the  piece-work  system  meaning  a  reduc- 
tion of  wages  is  not  correct — at  least,  it  is  not  so 
with  our  rolling  mills. 

We  have  no  apprentice  system.  The  requirements 
in  rolling  mills  are  a  broad  back  and  strong  arms. 
Under  the  system  of  piece-work  a  man  can  start  in 
as  an  apprentice,  and  if  he  does  not  produce  as  much 
as  a  man  who  is  a  well-skilled  worker  he  only  gets 
paid  so  much  less,  but  it  doesn't  lessen  the  producing 
power  of  the  man  who  can  turn  out  more  work.  If 
old  age  comes  on  his  capability  of  producing  is  less, 
but  he  gets  as  much  per  piece,  per  ton,  as  the  man 
who  is  able  and  strong  enough  to  make  the  product, 
and  as  a  consequence,  he  doesn't  interfere  with  the 
able-bodied  man  in  securing  the  wage.  Therefore,  I 
say  to  you  that  I  believe  in  the  incitement  of  paying 
piece-work  or  tonnage. 

I  don't  believe  in  the  premium  plan.  The  premium, 
I  think,  has  been  pretty  well  proven  here,  and  the 
argument  on  it  proved  conclusively,  that  it  was  not 
the  thing.  This  premium  plan  puts  me  in  mind  of 
John  Morgan  and  Tom  Marlow,  an  Irishman  and  a 
Welshman,  who  were  working  in  the  mills  where  I 
was.  They  had  a  great  deal  of  trouble  over  a  shovel 
which  they  used  and  which  had  been  stolen.  One 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  331 

day  they  were  changing  turns  when  Morgan  said  to 
Marlow,  "Tom,  I  was  just  thinking  about  the  trouble 
we  had  with  that  shovel  and  was  thinking  that  if  we 
were  to  put  a  mark  on  the  handle  of  the  next  one  we 
get,  we  would  know  if  any  one  stole  it."  Tom 
scratched  his  head  a  little  and  said:  "John,  I  don't 
think  that  would  amount  to  much.  The  man  who 
would  be  mane  enough  to  steal  the  shovel  would  steal 
the  mark,  too."  (Laughter.)  The  premium  plan 
strikes  me  as  on  that  same  idea. 

I  don't  believe  in  pensions  in  old  age.  I  don't  be- 
lieve in  inciting  a  workman  to  serve  in  a  place  by 
promising  him  after  he  has  been  there  a  number  of 
years  that  he  will  get  a  pension.  Pensions  are,  I 
rather  think,  necessary  so  far  as  war  veterans  are 
concerned ;  but  when  you  introduce  it  into  every-day 
life  you  take  away  the  incentive  of  the  man  to  put 
forward  his  greatest  effort.  You  take  away  his  as- 
piration to  earn  enough  money  that  he  may  get  up 
in  the  world.  You  take  away  the  incentive  to  lay  by 
enough  against  dependence  in  old  age.  It  is  pater- 
nalism in  another  form.  I  am  opposed  to  anything 
in  the  way  of  paternalism.  I  believe  in  inciting  men 
to  greater  effort  and  better  work,  and  shortening  their 
hours. 

Now,  I  have  heard  much  of  the  eight-hour  question 
and  how  it  would  work,  and  what  a  great  hardship 
it  would  create  on  the  manufacturer.  I  had  hoped 
that  some  one  would  touch  this  phase  of  the  question. 
Up  to  1884  in  the  rolling  mills  there  were  ten  or 
twelve  hours  at  all  times.  In  1884  we  got  up  a  dis- 
cussion of  experimenting  on  sheet  mills;  as  to  whe- 


332 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


ther  we  could  work  three  turns  of  eight  hours,  and  it 
was  discussed  and  gone  through  with  the  manufac- 
turers; some  of  the  workmen  were  at  first  alarmed 
and  were  opposed  to  the  change.  But  we  finally 
agreed  that  we  would  make  the  experiment  in  one 
particular  mill  for  a  year.  We  were  then  working 
ten  hours  on  sheet  mills,  two  shifts.  We  were  turn- 
ing out  eight  heats  in  ten  hours.  It  was  agreed  to 
lessen  the  number  of  heats  to  seven,  in  order  to  put 
on  three  shifts,  working  eight  hours.  Within  a  few 
years  we  were  working  nine  heats  instead  of  seven 
on  the  three-turn  system,  and  from  the  one  sheet  mill 
the  system  was  introduced  practically  in  every  sheet 
mill  in  the  United  States 

The  tin  plate  industry  came  into  this  country  in 
1892,  and  every  mill  in  the  United  States  was  put  on 
an  eight-hour  or  three-turn  basis.  Not  alone  this, 
but  the  example  set  proved  that  it  was  possible  in 
mills  where  we  never  expected  to  see  it  operated, 
and  we  have  introduced  it  now  into  the  puddling 
departments,  into  the  finishing  departments,  in  fact, 
into  every  department  of  the  rolling  mill  has  gone  the 
three-turn  system  of  eight  hours  to  a  greater  or  lesser 
degree. 

The  effort  along  this  line  has  increased  the  output. 
It  did  not  disturb  things,  and  I  want  to  say  to  you 
to-day  that  if  we,  as  an  organization,  went  to  the  em- 
ployers and  asked  for  a  return  to  the  twelve-hour 
system,  they  would  combat  it  more  furiously  than 
they  would  a  large  advance  in  wages.  They  believe 
in  it.  They  have  seen  the  benefit  to  themselves  of 
men  who  are  working  shorter  hours;  that  they  can 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


333 


do  better  work.  Their  whole  being  is  more  alive  for 
eight  hours;  they  can  watch  a  machine  better;  there 
is  less  breakage  of  rolls;  there  is  less  breakage  of 
machinery;  their  whole  person  is  alert  for  that  time. 
Drag  them  on  for  twelve  hours  and  you  don't  get 
that  return;  you  don't  get  that  full- effort  of  the  man. 
I  have  only  known  in  my  experience  one  case  in 
which  a  return  from  eight  hours  to  twelve  was  made, 
and  that  was  said  to  be  because  the  competitors  in 
the  same  line  of  work  would  not  come  to  it. 

I  have  heard  a  good  deal  of  discussion  as  to  the 
great  hardship  it  would  be  to  put  on  eight  hours  in 
the  mills  and  factories  throughout  the  United  States. 
No  one  here  has  stated  where  they  have  learned  that 
any  firm  or  company  working  eight  hours  went  back 
to  long  hours.  To  my  mind  there  is  none.  Hence 
the  best  possible  proof  that  the  system  of  shorter 
hours  is  a  benefit.  Those  things  are  worked  out  to  see 
how  they  pay,  as  was  stated  here  the  other  day. 
They  are  worked  out  simply  on  that  line.  Hence,  if  a 
mill  is  operating  on  eight  hours  and  they  continue  on 
eight  hours  and  do  not  advise  a  return  to  the  old 
system,  does  not  that  prove  that  the  system  is  good? 

In  addition  to  that  it  has  been  stated  here  that  it 
is  absolutely  impossible  to  start  the  work  of  eight 
hours  in  factories.  Do  you  know  that  in  this  age  of 
electric  lights,  generally  speaking,  factories  are 
running  more  than  ten  or  twelve  hours.  I  think 
there  are  very  few  exceptions  where  factories  that 
are  working  single  turn  are  not  giving  the  men  over- 
time in  the  evening,  working  two,  three  or  four  hours 
in  the  evening  and  paying  them  time  and  a  half. 


334  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE 

Now,  if  they  can  be  worked  ten,  twelve  and  four- 
teen hours,  why  not  work  them  two  shifts  of  eight 
hours  each?  The  cost  would  be  lessened  by  straight 
time  in  wages.  Looking  at  the  subject  from  this  to 
me  practical  side,  I  cannot  see  that  this  committee 
could  advise  more  wisely  than  by  urging  the  settle- 
ment of  disputes  between  employers  and  employees 
themselves.  If  either  one  makes  a  mistake  in  de- 
mands, this  committee  stands  as  a  reproving  com- 
mittee. Its  office  is  to  discover  whether  either  of  the 
parties  in  a  dispute  is  unwilling  to  expose  to  the 
light  of  day  their  side  to  the  difficulty.  If  they  are, 
then  they  have  not  got  a  good  case.  They  have 
been  acting  foolishly,  and  as  a  consequence  this  com- 
mittee can  say  to  them :  "  Quit  foolishness ;  meet  with 
the  other  side  and  deal  on  a  business  basis." 

After  all,  there  is  nothing  to  the  subject  except 
this,  that  the  employee  works  for  wages,  and  the 
more  he  can  get  the  better  for  him.  He  wants  to 
work  shorter  hours  because  of  bettering  his  condition, 
to  have  time  to  associate  with  his  family,  and  to  edu- 
cate himself  and  to  meet  with  others  and  lift  himself 
socially,  instead  of  dragging  on  twelve  hours,  going 
home  and  sleeping  and  eating,  and  coming  back 
again  to  work  day  after  day.  Now,  when  it  is  proven 
that  the  output  is  greater,  when  our  capacity  to  com- 
pete with  countries  that  have  been  working  longer 
hours  has  been  proven,  we  say  to  you  that  we  think 
it  is  well  to  advise  the  adoption  of  this  eight-hour 
bill  that  is  now  before  Congress  at  Washington  and 
that  has  been  disputed  here  to-day.  It  has  been 
said  here  that  it  would  impose  a  hardship  upon  some 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


335 


manufacturers  who  might  bid  for  government  work 
to  require  them  to  work  on  the  eight-hour  system. 
I  want  to  say  to  you  that  where  labor  organizations, 
where  agreements  have  been  entered  into  between 
manufacturer  and  man  on  the  eight-hour  basis, 
and  there  is  no  provision  that  the  contract 
shall  be  let  on  the  eight-hour  basis,  does  it  not 
impose  a  hardship  on  the  man  or  company  who 
is  working  the  eight  hours?  .  Is  it  fair  to  them? 
The  government,  it  seems  to  me,  should  be  willing 
to  aid  and  abet  any  improvement  in  the  condition 
of  the  people  and  the  greater  number  of  the  people. 
(Applause.) 

CHAIRMAN  HANNA:  I  will  now  introduce  to  you 
Mr.  A.  Beverly  Smith,  secretary  of  the  Lithographers' 
Association  of  the  United  States 

MR.  A.  BEVERLY  SMITH:  My  time  is  limited,  and  as 
I  come  from  an  industry  not  so  large  nor  so  broad  as 
those  which  have  preceded  us,  probably  this  is  as 
it  should  be.  At  the  same  time,  I  feel  that  our  asso- 
ciation has  evolved  some  thoughts  along  the  lines 
you  have  been  discussing  in  this  last  session  of  your 
convention,  and  that  these  ideas  may  be  of  service. 

Our  association  represents  at  the  present  time  fully 
seventy-five  per  cent,  of  the  lithographic  output  of  the 
entire  United  States,  and  although  lithography  is  a 
small  industry  compared  to  some  others,  it  contains 
within  itself  all  the  elements  that  enter  into,  and  all 
the  factors  that  are  a  portion  of  the  problems  pre- 
sented to  the  greatest  corporation  or  the  largest  in- 
dustry in  the  country. 


336  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

It  is  useless  for  me  to  re  view  the  present  conditions 
of  trade  as  related  to  labor.  We  all  know  what  they 
are,  and  those  who,  up  to  this  time,  have  not  realized 
them,  have  had  the  importance  of  these  conditions 
fully  demonstrated  at  this  convention  by  abler 
tongues  than  mine.  These  conditions  are,  some  of 
them,  bad,  many  onerous  in  the  extreme,  and  alto- 
gether form  a  most  serious  handicap  upon  the  prog- 
ress of  our  industries.  I  hold,  however,  that  the 
apathy  of  employers,  as  a  class,  is  most  largely  re- 
sponsible for  the  present  situation  and  for  the  ills  of 
the  present  condition.  Employers  failed  to  see  the 
potentialities  for  good  or  ill  in  the  organization  by 
their  men,  and  neglected  the  golden  opportunity 
afforded  in  the  beginning  of  such  organization  to 
make  themselves  part  of  it,  as  it  were,  and  by  wise 
counsel  and  friendly  co-operation  to  direct  the  move- 
ment to  the  betterment  of  trade  conditions.  Had 
they  done  this,  the  history  of  trade  unionism  in  this 
country  would  have  been  very  different  from  what  it 
is. 

As  matters  stand  to-day,  separate  organization  on 
the  part  of  employers  is  an  absolute  necessity.  Not 
merely  organization  along  broad  lines,  such  as  has 
been  attempted  in  the  past,  and  which  has  failed  in 
almost  every  instance  to  produce  any  good  or  per- 
manent result — but  close,  truly  co-operative  organi- 
zation, such  as  the  trade  unions  themselves  possess. 
Such  an  organization,  duly  recognizing  the  labor  or- 
ganizations, and  working  under  a  policy  of  perfect 
fairness  and  scrupulous  good  faith,  presents  the  only 
means  at  hand  to-day  by  which  the  employer  can 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


337 


hope  to  cope  successfully  with  the  mighty  forces 
which  have  been  called  into  being  by  the  men. 
Isolated  action  by  even  the  largest  employer  will  no 
longer  suffice ;  even  groups  of  employers  by  cities  are 
not  strong  enough.  It  is  only  by  the  combination  of 
a  whole  trade  into  a  compact  organization  that  it  is 
possible  to  accomplish  any  good  and  permanent  re- 
sult. 

Under  the  old  regime  we  had,  first,  the  isolated 
employer  dealing  directly  with  his  men,  and  through 
the  demands  of  competition,  or  for  less  noble  reasons, 
driving  bargains  with  them  which  were  not  always 
fair;  this  bred  antagonisms  on  the  part  of  the  men; 
next  came  associations  of  employers  loosely  put  to- 
gether, with  no  discipline,  and  not  always  with  the 
spirit  of  fair  dealing — ready  to  disappear,  as  most  of 
them  have,  at  the  first  breath  of  storm,  or  disrupted 
by  the  sharp  practice  of  those  who  sought  to  use  the 
organization  for  their  own  selfish  purpose.  This  form 
of  association  also  begot  antagonisms  between  em- 
ployer and  employee,  and  increased  the  feeling  of 
bitterness  between  the  classes.  Open  strife,  re- 
prisals and  arbitrary  measures  by  the  party  tempor- 
arily in  power  were  the  result,  and  thus  it  stands  to- 
day. 

There  seems  to  us  to  be  one  solution  for  all  this, 
and  that  is  to  form  of  the  employers  an  association 
having  a  business  head  and  place  of  business,  work- 
ing under  strict  discipline,  through  which  each  mem- 
ber shall  be  obliged  to  live  up  to  and  abide  by  the  laws 
mutually  agreed  upon,  and  dominated  by  the  policy 
of  fair  dealing,  to  which  I  have  before  alluded.  Such 


338  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

an  organization  can  well  afford  to  accept  the  organi- 
zations of  the  men  as  necessary  to  them  and  a  very 
proper  thing — as  a  good  thing  for  the  employer  as 
well  as  themselves,  and  to  consider  them  as  partners 
in  an  operation  to  which  there  are  always  three  fac- 
tors, namely,  the  employer,  the  workman,  and  the 
public  that  purchases  the  product.  That  idea  is 
carried  out,  as  you  know,  in  the  Civic  Federation. 
In  the  doing  of  this,  we  believe  in  setting  up  between 
organized  labor  and  organized  employers  a  condi- 
tion that  we  have  termed  "mutual  government,"  to- 
gether with  "preventive  arbitration.'*  It  may  be  well 
to  explain  what  we  mean  by  these  terms. 

"Mutual  government,"  from  our  point  of  view, 
means  the  establishment  of  a  joint  body  which  shall 
have  full  and  absolute  control  over  matters  of  mutual 
concern  between  employer  and  employee ;  getting  to- 
gether before  there  is  any  trouble,  before  there  is  any 
dispute  to  settle,  and  determining  the  fundamental 
conditions  upon  which  the  trade  shall  be  conducted 
in  its  relation  to  labor,  and  governing  the  mutual 
relations  of  both  parties  absolutely.  "Preventive 
arbitration"  means  that  should  any  question  at  all 
fundamental  arise,  upon  which  the  joint  governing 
body  is  unable  to  reach  a  conclusion,  it  is  not  to  be 
allowed  to  become  an  issue  between  the  parties,  but, 
then  and  there,  before  antagonistic  feelings  have  been 
engendered,  before  friction  has  come,  it  is  to  be  sub- 
mitted to  the  arbitration  of  disinterested  individuals 
and  their  decision  accepted  as  final. 

We  do  not  profess  to  have  a  panacea  for  all  the 
ills  that  trade  is  heir  to — there  are  too  many  such 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE  339 

offered  us — but  we  do  believe  we  have  gotten  down 
to  fundamental  principles  and  are  progressing  along 
the  road  to  better  conditions  for  both  capital  and 
labor.  Trade  agreements  are  good,  although  they 
leave  unsolved  that  most  important  question  of  the 
mutual  relation  of  employer  and  employee  to  the 
product  of  both;  so  are  those  agreements  by  which 
capital  and  labor  get  together  in  localities  and  estab- 
lish mutual  relations  under  which  yearly  scales  are 
determined;  all  these  are  steps  in  the  right  direction, 
but  they  are  only  steps  after  all.  It  is  only  by  the 
mutual  determination  of  all  the  elements  of  the  prob- 
lem that  industrial  peace,  or  better,  industrial  har- 
mony, can  be  assured. 

Under  conditions  such  as  I  have  briefly  outlined, 
the  restriction  of  output  and  limitation  of  appren- 
tices cease  to  be  the  vitally  important  questions 
which  they  are  at  present.  We  all  know  that  both 
these  evils  exist,  and  we  all  know  that  they  exist  as 
the  direct  action  of  trade  unions.  It  seems  to  me 
that  evasion  in  this  matter  is  both  foolish  and  futile. 
Trade  unions  do  restrict  output,  and  by  their  consti- 
tutions and  laws  restrict  the  ratio  of  apprentices  in 
any  given  trade,  but  the  leaders  of  organized  labor 
have  done  this  to  perfect  and  strengthen  their  or- 
ganizations, under  conditions  in  which  it  seemed  to 
them  the  proper — and  what  is  more  to  the  point — 
the  easiest  way  to  accomplish  this,  and  because, 
through  the  apathy  of  the  employers,  they  were  left 
to  do  pretty  much  as  they  pleased.  Short-sighted 
they  were,  of  course,  and  they  have  almost  emascu- 
lated some  industries  by  their  restrictions,  but  they 


340  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

have  had  no  one  to  teach  them  better,  to  counsel 
them  against  it,  or  to  otherwise  restrain  them. 

No  union  can  afford,  or  will  be  willing,  to  go  upon 
record  as  sanctioning  anything  which  will  tend  to 
retard  or  destroy  its  trade;  the  union  is  equally  in- 
terested with  the  employer  in  preserving  and  foster- 
ing the  business  that  affords  both  a  livelihood;  it  is 
because  they  do  not  believe  the  statement  of  em- 
ployers that  restriction  of  output  or  of  apprentices 
will  injure  business,  that  the  union  enforces  such  re- 
strictions. Perhaps  the  very  best  proof  of  this  is  to 
be  found  in  the  fact  that  in  our  own  trade,  where 
mutual  conditions  such  as  I  have  described  have 
been  established,  and  the  employers  thereby  enabled 
to  demonstrate  the  harm  likely  to  occur,  the  unions 
have  manifested  a  willingness,  and  even  a  desire,  to 
have  the  ratio  of  apprentices  fixed  by  concerted  action 
of  the  employers  and  themselves,  at  a  figure  sufficient- 
ly high  to  insure  meeting  the  legitimate  requirements 
of  the  trade,  as  demonstrable  by  the  facts  only  possible 
to  be  obtained  through  united  action. 

Another  advantage  to  be  obtained  by  the  working 
together  of  the  unions  with  the  associations  of  em- 
ployers is  the  immense  strengthening  of  each  by  the 
moral  and  active  support  of  the  other.  No  organi- 
zation has  yet  been  formed  that  has  not  had  its 
enemies  without,  eager  to  take  advantage  of  any 
opportunity,  and  its  foes  within,  ready  to  desert  the 
cause  at  any  time  immediate  self-interest  should 
prompt.  Both  organizations,  standing  together,  and 
using  their  united  power  against  those  who  refuse  to 
abide  by  the  conclusions  arrived  at  by  fair-minded, 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  341 

mutual  effort,  would  be  irresistible.  We  have  heard 
a  great  deal  here  of  the  only  weapon  labor  has  with 
which  to  protect  itself,  and  we  are  told  this  weapon 
is  the  power  to  strike ;  that  without  it  labor,  whether 
organized  or  not,  is  powerless.  This  is  not  true. 
There  exists  a  weapon  the  unions  have  not  attempted 
to  use,  which  yet  lies  within  their  hands;  this  weapon 
also  lies  unused  within  the  armory  of  the  employer, 
although  potent  against  trade  unionism,  and  against 
any  attempt  it  might  make  outside  its  moral  or 
legal  rights;  this  weapon  is  the  self-interest  of  the 
opposite  party.  If  unionism  will  go  hand-in-hand 
with  the  employer,  and  the  employer  go  hand-in-hand 
with  it,  acknowledging  its  partnership — a  limited 
partnership,  it  is  true,  but  a  partnership  nevertheless 
— it  will  then  become  the  direct  self-interest  of 
each  to  strengthen  and  increase  the  other,  to  keep 
faith  with  and  defend  the  other,  and  in  all  ways  to 
oppose  those  who  are  antagonistic  to  either.  This 
weapon  is  the  most  potent  and  powerful  that  can  be 
wielded,  and  one  to  the  use  of  which  there  can  lie 
no  objection,  either  moral  or  legal. 

Arbitration  is  at  once  the  most  lauded  and  the  most 
condemned  of  all  methods  of  arranging  disputes  be- 
tween both  nations  and  individuals ;  lauded,  because 
it  is  founded  upon  the  eternal  principles  of  justice 
and  equity;  condemned,  because,  in  its  application, 
the  principles  underlying  it  are  too  often  sacrificed 
to  policy,  and  what  should  be  the  decision  of  a  prin- 
ciple too  often  becomes  merely  a  compromise  be- 
tween right  and  wrong.  The  reason  for  this  is  not 
far  to  seek,  at  least  so  far  as  the  industrial  field  is 


342 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


concerned.  It  is  because  arbitration  is  usually  only 
resorted  to  after  active  warfare  has  begun.  Then,  when 
all  the  bitterness  engendered  by  strife  is  arrayed  on 
either  side,  and  blows  struck  in  anger,  and  reprisals 
are  brought  forward,  they  too  often  smother  and  re- 
place the  original  issue.  Under  such  circumstances, 
policy,  and  sometimes  even  necessity,  requires  of  the 
arbitrators  a  reconciliation  of  the  conflicting  elements, 
rather  than  an  equitable  decision  of  the  question, 
and  this,  however  acceptable  it  may  be  to  the  parties 
at  the  moment,  when  viewed  in  the  clearer  light  of 
after-thought,  becomes  a  reproach,  and  the  method 
by  which  it  was  obtained  is  unsparingly  condemned. 

The  remedy  is  to  be  found  in  the  application  of  ar- 
bitration before,  not  after,  an  issue  has  been  set  up. 
This  method  works  good  in  two  ways.  First,  under 
the  conditions  named,  arbitration  is  applied  with 
freedom  from  bias,  and  the  decision  rendered  is  di- 
rectly upon  the  question  presented,  unclouded  by 
suspicion  of  mere  policy;  second,  with  arbitration 
present  and  ready  to  determine  in  equity  any  ques- 
tion, the  fair-mindedness  (and  most  men  are  fair- 
minded  in  the  abstract)  of  the  parties  leads  them  to 
use  every  endeavor  to  arrive  at  a  conclusion  between 
themselves,  rather  than  to  present  the  question  to 
the  court.  Thus,  the  invocations  of  arbitration  be- 
come fewer  and  fewer,  while  the  application  of  the 
principles  underlying  it  are  more  and  more  often 
made  by  the  parties  themselves. 

Hence,  arbitration  works  only  for  good,  and  far 
beyond  what,  at  first  glance,  would  seem  to  be  its 
power.  This  is  because  it  is  educational  in  character, 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  343 

and  affords  a  feeling  of  security  and  peace  obtainable 
by  no  other  means  yet  devised. 

I  did  not  expect  to  address  this  convention  at  all. 
You  have  heard  more  eloquent  speakers  than  I,  and 
they  have  covered  the  ground  very  fully.  I  think  I 
have  fulfilled  my  duty  and  function  in  presenting 
to  you  the  thought  of  mutual  government  and  pre- 
ventive arbitration  as  remedies  for  the  troubles  now 
existing  in  the  industrial  world.  With  this  thought, 
and  thanking  you  for  your  kind  attention,  I  leave 
you. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I  will  now  call  on  Prof.  J.W.  Jenks, 
Professor  of  Political  Economy  at  Cornell  University. 

PROFESSOR  JENKS:  In  the  late  coal  strike — in 
nearly  all  of  the  great  modern  strikes  and  lockouts, 
we  have  had  illegal  attacks  upon  individuals.  I  have 
never  yet  heard  any  employer  of  labor  or  any  of  the 
great  labor  leaders  who  would  openly  say  that  such 
illegal  acts  were  to  be  advocated  or  to  be  directly  de- 
fended; nevertheless,  it  is  not  uncommon  to  have 
these  attacks  explained  at  times,  even  to  have  them 
excused  on  the  ground  that  in  time  of  "war"  such 
things,  however  regrettable,  were  inevitable,  were  to 
be  expected.  In  war,  it  is  said,  private  property  even 
of  non-combatants,  is  sacrificed;  treachery  is  not 
merely  allowed:  it  is  even  praiseworthy.  And  so,  it 
is  said,  inasmuch  as  a  strike  or  a  lockout  is  like  war, 
these  unfortunate  occurrences  are,  at  any  rate,  to  be 
expected,  and  possibly  to  be  excused. 

We  know,  also,  that  of  late  members  of  trades 
unions  have  been  at  times  forbidden  to  join  the  militia, 


344  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

because  they  might  be  asked  to  fight  against  their 
brethren.  They  have  sometimes,  on  the  other  hand, 
been  urged  to  join  the  militia,  in  order  that  they  might 
not  fight  against  their  brethren  if  called  upon. 

We  heard  yesterday,  we  have  heard  this  morning, 
contrariwise  that  the  normal  relations  of  capital  and 
labor  are  those  of  peace;  that  the  real  interests  of 
both  are  harmonious. 

We  have  then  this  analogy  of  the  relations  of  capi- 
tal and  labor  to  war  and  peace.  It  is,  perhaps,  worth 
while  to  analyze  this  curious  but  false  analogy.  How 
does  it  happen  that  on  the  one  hand  peace  is  said 
to  be  a  normal  condition,  while  on  the  other  hand 
acts  like  those  of  war  are  justified? 

The  relations  between  the  capitalist  and  the  laborer 
are  two-fold.  In  production,  their  interests  are 
in  the  same  direction.  Both  parties  wish  to  have 
the  largest,  the  most  valuable  product  possible,  that 
there  may  be  more  to  divide  between  them.  It  is  for 
the  interest  of  both  to  pull  together.  If  one  is  un- 
willing to  pull  his  full  share  the  other  naturally  resents 
it ;  and  it  might  be  that  under  these  circumstances  a 
larger  share  of  a  smaller  total  product  would  be  better 
for  the  person  injured. 

On  the  other  hand,  in  the  division  of  the  product, 
capital  and  labor  naturally  pull  in  different  ways. 
The  more  the  employer  has,  the  less  is  left  for  the 
laborer.  There  is  where  the  conflict  comes.  Each 
party  wants  all  that  he  can  get  without  hindering 
progress  too  much.  If  the  other  is  too  grasping,  it 
may  be  that  it  would  be  better  to  check  production 
somewhat  than  to  let  him  have  all  he  asks  for.  But 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  345 

there,  in  the  division  of  the  product,  is  where  the  con- 
flict comes. 

As  I  understand  the  matter,  while  trade  unions 
have  education  and  benefit  features,  they  are  or- 
ganized primarily  for  the  purpose  of  strengthening 
the  individual  laborer  in  this  natural  normal  contest 
with  the  employer  for  his  share  of  the  product.  It  is 
said  that  a  workman  standing  alone  has  not  an  even 
chance.  He  must  take  what  wages  are  offered  him. 
Of  course,  if  dissatisfied,  he  may  quit  work;  but  to 
quit  work  may  mean  to  starve.  He  feels  that, 
standing  alone,  he  is  a  bondsman.  United  with  his 
fellows,  he  is  free.  He  is  not  willing  to  take  an  in- 
crease of  wages  from  his  employer  as  a  gift.  He 
wants  to  bargain.  He  says  he  is  not  a  pauper  to  ask 
for  gifts;  he  is  a  free  man.  He  is  right,  in  my  judg- 
ment, in  this  feeling.  He  has  the  spirit  of  a  free  man, 
which  all  ought  to  have  in  this  country. 

The  laborer  claims  also  that  the  union  is  the  cham- 
pion of  the  cause  of  all  laborers,  non-unionists  as  well 
as  unionists.  Gains  in  wages,  fewer  hours  of  labor, 
protection  of  machinery,  better  sanitary  conditions, 
are  all  largely  the  result  of  the  union's  efforts.  In 
these  benefits  all,  non-unionist  and  unionist,  alike 
share. 

When  in  the  conflict  for  a  larger  share  of  the  prod- 
uct, the  strike,  a  workman  turns  and  joins  the  em- 
ployer, he  destroys  the  advantage  of  the  laborer  and 
turns  against  his  class.  His  fellows  naturally  feel 
that  he  is  disloyal,  false  to  his  trust.  They  call  him 
from  this  false  war  analogy  a  traitor.  Their  class 
feeling  does  not  distinguish  between  their  class  and 


346  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

society  as  a  whole,  their  class  and  the  State.  The 
strikers  feel  that  he  is  a  traitor  and  that  the  punish- 
ment of  a  traitor  would  not  be  too  severe.  The 
feeling  is  natural  enough;  the  conclusion  is  wrong, 
ruinously  wrong,  as  all  strong  labor  leaders  know. 
A  class,  however  important,  is  not  a  whole  society  or 
a  State.  It  is  only  an  important  part,  possibly  the 
most  important  part  of  the  State.  Legally,  the  strike 
breaker  is  right;  he  may  work  for  whom  he  pleases; 
morally,  he  may  be  wrong,  he  may  be  right. 

The  question  of  right  or  wrong  in  his  act  depends 
upon  his  motive.  He  may  be  a  conscientious,  high- 
minded  individualist  who  objects  to  the  trammels  of 
any  organization,  who  does  not  wish  to  be  hampered 
by  the  rules  of  any  union,  because  he  thinks  it  is 
better,  not  merely  for  himself,  but  for  society,  that 
each  man  stand  as  an  individual.  If  he  is  that  kind 
of  a  strike  breaker  he  is  morally  right,  however  mis- 
taken his  views  may  be.  He  is  acting  from  a  worthy 
motive  and  deserves  only  respect.  If,  on  the  other 
hand,  as  is,  perhaps,  usually  the  case,  he  is  merely  a 
selfish  opportunist  seizing  every  chance  to  profit  for 
himself  even  at  the  expense  of  his  fellows,  taking  the 
good  they  may  bring  him  through  their  action  and 
not  being  willing  to  sacrifice  anything  in  return,  he 
may  be  within  his  legal  rights  in  acting  as  a  strike 
breaker,  but  he  is  a  selfish  wretch,  worthy  of  the  con- 
tempt which  he  receives. 

If  he  sympathizes  with  his  fellows,  is  not  willing  to 
take  the  lower  wage,  but  shrinks  from  the  suffering 
either  for  himself  or  family  which  the  strike  involves, 
it  is  probably  right  to  call  him  a  coward.  He  is  un- 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  347 

willing  to  sacrifice  for  the  good  of  his  class,  even  when 
his  class  is  right.  Under  those  circumstances  his  fel- 
lows may  drop  him.  They  cannot  punish  him. 
Selfishness  and  cowardice  are  contemptible,  but  they 
are  not  crimes.  We  may  despise  the  strike  breaker 
who  acts  from  either  of  these  motives;  not  even  the 
government,  and  certainly  not  we,  have  any  legal 
right  to  punish  him. 

Now  a  word  or  two  regarding  the  difference  between 
a  strike  and  war. 

In  war  there  is  no  arbiter  of  the  conflict,  there  are 
no  rules  except  those  self-imposed  under  the  public 
opinion  of  the  world,  and  those,  we  know,  are  shifting 
and  unreliable.  Property  may  be  destroyed,  even 
that  of  non-combatants.  The  country  may  be  laid 
waste;  treachery  is  allowed.  In  a  strike,  on  the 
other  hand,  there  is  an  arbiter  of  the  conflict,  the 
government.  The  rules  of  battle  are  laid  down  in  the 
laws.  Both  sides  must  and  ought  to  abide  by  these 
rules,  otherwise  a  greater  wrong  is  done  than  any 
which  can  have  brought  on  the  conflict.  In  fact, 
in  labor  relations,  both  sides  often  break  the  rules. 
Employers  combine,  regardless  of  the  law,  neglect  to 
protect  machinery,  neglect  room  regulations,  willingly 
join  the  parents  in  hiring  children  under  age.  In 
times  of  strike  their  hired  police  forget  that  it  is 
their  duty  to  keep  the  peace,  and  at  times  incite  to 
violence. 

The  workers  commit  these  acts  and  in  time  of 
strike  often  commit  violence.  In  such  violations  of 
law  the  workers,  as  a  rule,  lose  most.  The  upholding 
of  government  and  order  is  a  need  especially  of  the 


348  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

weak.  In  the  Middle  Ages  the  feudal  lord  was  above 
the  law,  was  a  law  to  himself;  the  weak  had  no 
rights.  The  establishment  of  stable  government  has 
been  in  the  interest  of  the  poor ;  the  establishment  of 
popular  government  means  government  for  all  by  all. 
The  progress  of  civilization  has  been  marked  by  the 
abolition  of  the  vendetta,  private  vengeance.  Before 
the  establishment  of  stable  government  the  individual 
had  to  right  his  own  wrongs ;  now  the  State  rights  his 
wrongs.  Doubtless  there  are  abuses  to-day;  the 
State  sometimes  neglects  its  duty;  the  weak  are 
wronged;  so  are  the  strong.  The  remedy  is  through 
peaceful  agitation,  by  showing  clearly  that  the  wrong 
exists.  When  the  issue  is  clear,  the  masses,  our  final 
law-makers,  are  always,  in  my  judgment,  on  the  side 
of  right,  on  the  side  of  order.  Order  under  law  is 
absolutely  fundamental.  In  any  civilization  it  is  the 
first  condition  of  a  good  status  of  the  poor.  No  one, 
least  of  all  the  laborers,  can  afford  to  question  that 
principle.  Better  lose  a  dozen  strikes  than  to  appear 
on  the  wrong  side  of  that  question.  The  police 
properly  used  are  to  keep  order;  they  are  not  for 
either  side  in  any  social  conflict.  The  militia  is  for 
order  only,  not  for  either  side.  The  army  is  for 
order  under  law,  at  the  command  of  the  chosen  gov- 
ernment. The  one  condition  of  social  progress  is 
law;  the  one  method  of  change  is  by  reason,  per- 
suasion. 

We  have  our  arbiter  for  our  social  contests;  we 
may  properly  fight,  we  must  fight,  for  our  rights  in 
many  cases,  but  we  must  fight  under  law,  with  the 
government  as  umpire.  In  war  you  may  at  times 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


349 


ignore  the  umpire,  for  the  public  opinion  of  the  world 
is  very  indefinite  and  slow  in  action.  Within  the 
State,  if  you  ignore  the  umpire,  the  government,  you 
put  yourself  out  of  the  game. 

I  think  it  is  worth  while  to  ask  the  question 
whether  it  ever  pays  a  labor  union  to  commit  deeds 
of  violence  in  order  to  keep  the  strike  breakers  away 
and  thus  to  win  the  strike? 

I  ask  the  question  because  I  have  heard  it  asserted 
many  times.  I  have  heard  it  asserted  in  reference 
to  the  late  coal  strike  that  the  one  condition  of  suc- 
cess was  that  the  union  intimidate  the  non-unionists. 
In  my  judgment  it  is  not  true;  but  if  it  were  true, 
even  then,  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  union,  the 
worst  possible  course  of  action  that  could  be  taken 
would  be  to  violate  the  law,  because,  as  I  said  before, 
the  fundamental  condition  of  all  progress,  especially 
for  the  weak,  is  the  keeping  of  the  law.  When  the 
law  is  wrong  it  should  be  changed.  We  have  heard 
to-day  how  powerful  the  trades  unions  are  in  chang- 
ing the  law.  Any  one  who  looks  at  the  statute  books 
knows  very  well  that  much  of  the  progressive  legis- 
lation of  the  last  few  years  is  due  to  the  power  of  the 
trades  unions.  The  unions  might  better  lose  a  strike 
and  wait  a  year  or  two  or  even  more  (as  the  employers 
might)  to  get  proper,  just  legislation,  than  to  violate 
the  law.  That  act  puts  them  out  of  court. 

Just  one  word  more.  Loyalty  means  devotion  to 
the  law.  Loyalty  to  family,  loyalty  to  class,  is  only 
figurative.  The  preservation  of  the  family,  the  ad- 
vancement of  class  interest,  whatever  the  class,  can 
come  only  under  stable  government.  The  conse- 


35° 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


quence  is  that  the  only  true  loyalty  to  either  family 
or  class  is  through,  first,  loyalty  to  the  government. 
The  man,  the  organization,  rich  or  poor,  labor  union 
or  corporation,  that  stands  for  law  as  it  is  and  for 
its  improvement  only  by  legal  means,  wins  in  the 
long  run,  for  whatever  other  conditions  may  be  de- 
sirable (short  of  armed  revolution,  justifiable  only  in 
extremest  need)  the  one  indispensable  condition  of 
all  progress,  especially  for  the  weak,  is  the  supremacy 
of  the  government,  order  under  law. 

A  strike  is  not  a  war.  It  is  a  conflict  under  govern- 
ment. Any  attack,  direct  or  indirect,  upon  the  gov- 
ernment, except  to  reform  it,  since  order  is  essential 
to  growth,  is  morally  as  well  as  legally  wrong.  In 
the  past  both  sides,  capital  and  labor,  have  sinned  in 
this  regard.  Capital  has  probably  sinned  most  be- 
fore the  strike,  labor  most  in  time  of  strike.  Both 
have  committed  crimes.  Both  they  and  the  public 
should  see  to  it  that  hereafter  both  keep  the  law. 
(Applause.) 

THE  CHAIRMAN  :  The  next  speaker  will  be  Mr.  John 
Graham  Brooks,  of  Cambridge. 

MR.  JOHN  GRAHAM  BROOKS:  Mr.  Chairman— 
During  the  last  fifteen  or  sixteen  years  I  have  been 
keeping  track  of  the  so-called  remedies  for  the  dis- 
eases we  are  here  discussing.  The  list  has  now 
reached  eighty-seven.  Each  was  confidently  be- 
lieved by  somebody  to  be  a  sovereign  remedy  for 
social  ills.  This  gives  us  a  good  deal  of  incredulity 
about  panaceas.  I  will,  therefore,  avoid  the  mistake 
of  adding  an  eighty-eighth  remedy  to  the  above  list, 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  351 

yet  I  am  very  confident  that  we  have  been  discussing 
this  afternoon  a  better  remedy  than  any  one  of  the 
eighty-seven.  This  is  the  joint  agreement,  in  favor 
of  which  employer  and  employed  alike  have  given  the 
most  convincing  testimony.  This  trade  agreement 
helps  us  at  the  present  time  precisely  where  our  weak- 
ness is  greatest.  The  trade  union  is  as  great  a  fact  as 
the  trust,  and  is  now  rightly  struggling  for  every  priv- 
ilege that  goes  with  federated  organization.  In  every 
industry  where  the  joint  agreement  has  been  tried 
it  strengthens  the  trade  union  at  the  same  time  that 
it  disciplines  it,  and  helps  it  to  overcome  its  most 
serious  weaknesses.  I  would  have  come  to  New  York 
if  for  no  other  purpose  than  to  hear  one  of  these 
English  delegates  at  the  head  of  one  of  the  most 
powerful  trade  unions  say  that  the  question  of  arbi- 
tration, the  walking  delegate,  incorporation,  have  all 
been  settled  as  the  spinners  have  perfected  their 
common  organization  with  the  employers.  A  power- 
ful union  under  a  few  years  of  the  joint  agreement  will 
keep  its  contracts  as  faithfully  as  the  employer.  We 
do  not  any  of  us  care  for  remedies  further  than  their 
educational  effect.  Whatever  educates  most  and 
best  is  best. 

Toward  this  the  joint  agreement  will  help.  I  do 
not  make  the  absurd  claim  that  this  systematized 
understanding  between  the  two  parties  is  a  panacea. 
Because  the  word  panacea  is  rejected,  it  does  not 
follow  that  the  more  modest  proposal  may  not  have 
what  is  relatively  a  very  supreme  importance.  The 
evidence  is  overwhelming  that  this  importance  may 
be  fairly  attributed  to  the  joint  agreement  if  only 


352 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


employers  will  bring  to  it  something  of  their  real 
strength  and  sympathy.  It  gives  us  arbitration  in 
its  very  highest  form;  that  is  from  within.  It  gives 
it  in  the  one  way  to  secure  every  enlightening  edu- 
cational advantage.  It  is  to  the  joint  agreement 
that  we  must  look  for  our  best  answer  to  all  premature 
calls  for  trade  union  incorporation.  At  present,  the 
unions  are  right  in  rejecting  it.  Multitudes  of  men, 
especially  among  the  newer  immigrants,  would  see  in 
the  power  of  the  court  a  reason  for  not  joining  the 
unions.  Until  they  have  reached  a  greater  strength 
and  stability,  incorporation  would  hamper  them  in  the 
best  work  they  are  now  doing.  But  the  point  I  urge 
is,  that  the  joint  agreement  does  a  far  better  educa- 
tional work.  To  keep  agreements  voluntarily  is  a 
much  higher  discipline  than  to  do  it  under  force. 
For  many  years  unions  have  actually  kept  contracts 
when  employers  have  genuinely  and  heartily  co- 
operated with  the  joint  agreement. 

There  is  no  such  convincing  proof  of  this  as  the 
fifteen  years'  trial  between  masters  and  men  in  the 
Boston  building  trades.  The  agent  of  the  employers, 
Mr.  Say  ward,  who  brought  about  this  agreement,  con- 
ducting it  with  growing  success  for  eighteen  years, 
allows  me  to  say  that  under  it  scores  of  strikes  have 
been  prevented,  millions  of  money  saved,  and  the 
most  delicate  questions,  like  the  limitation  of  output 
and  apprentices,  the  use  of  the  boycott,  the  conflicts 
between  different  unions  and  the  sympathetic  strike, 
are  now  so  far  understood,  as  a  result  of  this  education, 
that  they  are  no  longer  feared. 

Speaking  from  the  side  of  the  employers,  Mr.  Say- 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  353 

ward  says:  "My  experience  has  convinced  me  that 
labor,  thoroughly  organized  and  honestly  recognized, 
is  even  more  important  for  the  employer  than  for  the 
workmen.  It  makes  possible  a  working  method  be- 
tween the  two  parties  which  removes  one  by  one  the 
most  dangerous  elements  of  conflict  and  misunder- 
standing. 

It  is  from  these  building  trade  unions  in  cities  like 
Chicago  and  New  York  that  many  of  our  worst 
abuses  have  come.  It  is  here  that  the  architect,  as 
between  the  devil  and  the  deep  sea,  has  his  most 
tormenting  experience.  It  is  here  that  the  bribing  and 
buying  of  walking  delegates  have  done  their  per- 
nicious work.  Mr.  Say  ward  says:  "Not  one  of  these 
evils  is  necessary;  they  can  be  educated  out  of  the 
way."  Where  the  union  has  been  openly  recognized 
under  this  joint  agreement,  and  the  representatives 
of  employer  and  employed  have  learned  the  habit  of 
meeting  difficulties  as  they  arise,  the  terrors  of  the 
walking  delegate  and  the  "scab"  begin  to  disappear. 
The  name  "walking  delegate"  is  replaced  by  "busi- 
ness agent."  Mr.  Say  ward  says:  "  I  no  longer  either 
fear  or  object  to  the  walking  delegate.  I  see  that 
he  is  a  necessity  to  the  best  work  of  the  union."  In 
an  address  before  the  National  Association  of  Build- 
ers, Mr.  Sayward  criticises  the  employers  for  saying 
that  they  will  not  treat  with  the  unions  until  they 
are  improved.  "This,"  he  says,  "is  like  asking  the 
child  to  swim  but  not  go  near  the  water."  The  em- 
ployer must  take  part  in  this  educational  work  as  a 
very  condition  of  its  success.  In  closing  this  address, 
Mr.  Sayward  said  "that  either  for  the  building  trades 


354 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


or  other  lines  of  work,  these  intricate  and  involved 
matters  will  not  take  care  of  themselves;  they  can- 
not safely  be  entrusted  to  one  of  the  interested  par- 
ties alone ;  both  parties  must  have  equal  concern,  must 
act  jointly,  not  only  in  their  own  interests,  but,  in 
effect,  in  the  interests  of  the  community." 

For  that  trouble-breeding  portion  of  industry,  here 
discussed,  the  joint  agreement  is  all  that  any  solution 
can  be,  namely,  the  next  best  practical  step  toward 
a  rational  industrial  method.  This  agreement  ap- 
plies at  points  where  unionism  is  inevitable;  where 
the  wage  system  is  under  such  strain  as  to  require 
modification  in  the  direction  of  a  more  democratized 
management.  Every  scheme  that  is  not  inherently 
educational  is  worthless,  because  the  clash  of  the 
trust  and  the  trade  union  is  raising  new  issues  for 
which  an  enlarged  social  morality  is  necessary.  A 
wise  use  of  the  joint  agreement,  made  elastic  and 
practically  adapted  to  varying  conditions,  is  a  long, 
sure  step  towards  the  common  educated  good  will 
upon  which  industrial  peace  depends. 

MR.  G.  N.  BARNES:  Mr.  Chairman  and  Friends: — 
It  had  been  my  intention  to  avail  myself  of  an  oppor- 
unity  Mr.  Easley  had  promised  me  of  offering  a  few 
observations  on  some  points  that  have  been  covered 
to-day  and  yesterday.  I  shall  not  now  avail  myself 
of  that  opportunity  further  than  to  say  a  few  words 
about  one  or  two  points  in  connection  with  which 
my  own  name,  or  the  organization  which  I  repre- 
sent, has  been  mentioned.  I  am  sure  you  have  not 
lost  much,  because  anything  I  might  have  said 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  355 

would  have  been  stale,  flat  and  unprofitable  as  com- 
pared with  that  forceful,  eloquent  and,  on  the  whole, 
persuasive  speech  of  our  friend  Gompers  this  morning. 

First  of  all  I  want  to  avail  myself  of  this  oppor- 
tunity of  expressing  my  sincere  regret  that  my  name 
has  been  associated  in  a  most  maladroit  manner 
with  the  name  of  a  particular  firm  that  has  been 
dragged  into  the  discussion  of  these  last  two  days. 
I  have  not  assented  to  the  name  of  that  firm  as 
being  identical  with  that  alluded  to  by  me,  nor  do 
I  assent  now.  I  am  very  glad  that  the  opportunity 
is  afforded  me  of  having  that  fact  recorded  upon  the 
minutes  of  this  meeting. 

Second,  I  have  had  brought  to  my  notice  some- 
thing that  was  said  by  a  gentleman  just  before  dinner , 
and  I  have  been  out  and  copied  the  remarks.  I 
want  to  make  some  reference  to  it,  because  it 
refers  to  the  men  of  the  organization  with  which  I 
am  connected. 

The  gentleman  in  question  stated  that  he  had 
been  over  to  England;  that  he  had  been  there  while 
great  strikes  were  in  progress;  that  one  of  these 
strikes  was  in  the  engineering  industry.  It  had 
relation  to  the  manning  of  machines — that  the 
union  in  question  was  trying  to  dominate  the  em- 
ployers in  regard  to  the  working  of  those  machines — 
and,  to  use  his  own  words,  "That  as  a  consequence, 
the  products  produced  from  their  labor  could  not 
be  marketed  in  the  markets  of  the  world  by  England." 

I  want  to  say,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  is  not  true. 
This  is  no  time  for  circumlocution,  nor  is  there  any 
need  for  it.  I  simply  say  that  that  is  not  true.  The 


356  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

strike  in  question  was  one,  not  about  machines,  but 
was  one  in  regard  to  hours  of  labor  in  the  London 
district,  and  was  a  demand  for  a  limitation  of  the 
hours  of  labor  which  I  think  was  absolutely  justi- 
fied by  all  the  facts  of  the  situation.  I  believe  with 
our  friend  Gompers  that  you  are  not  going  to  get  a 
universal  eight-hour  day  or  a  nine-hour  day — not 
all  at  once,  at  all  events.  You  are  going  to  have 
limitation  of  hours  "by  spots,"  as  was  said  yester- 
day. Lord  Shaftesbury  and  the  others,  sixty  or 
eighty  years  ago,  didn't  wait  until  they  could  get  an 
agreement  with  Germany  or  some  other  country 
before  they  reduced  the  hours  in  Lancashire.  They 
saw  the  pressing  evil  right  ahead  of  them  and  they 
went  about  and  remedied  it.  Our  London  men  were 
doing  the  same  thing  five  years  ago,  and  that  pre- 
cipitated the  strike  to  which  allusion  has  been  made. 
Then  the  gentleman  says  that  our  engineering  prod- 
ucts, in  consequence  of  union  restrictions,  have  not 
sustained  themselves  in  the  markets  of  the  world. 
What  are  the  facts?  Twenty-five  years  ago,  before 
the  strike  to  which  allusion  has  been  made,  the 
engineering  products  that  were  sent  annually  abroad 
amounted  to  seven  million  pounds  sterling,  or  $33,- 
000,000.  Five  years  ago,  the  year  prior  to  this 
great  strike  in  question,  the  engineering  products 
exported  from  Great  Britain  amounted  to  eighteen 
million  pounds  sterling,  or  $90,000,000.  Now  it 
seems  to  me  that  these  facts  do  not  fit  in  very  well 
with  the  statements  that  have  been  made  by  our 
friend,  and  I  am  very  glad  to  have  had  this  oppor- 
tunity of  putting  our  side  before  this  meeting. 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  357 

Third — this  was  in  connection  with  the  discus- 
sion yesterday,  initiated,  I  think,  by  Mr.  Halsey, 
but  I  won't  be  sure.  At  all  events  it  covered  two 
questions,  piece-work  and  the  premium  bonus  sys- 
tem. Some  discussion  took  place  yesterday  upon 
those  two  systems,  and  I  want  to  give  you  my  view 
upon  them,  and  I  want  to  do  that  because  Mr. 
Halsey  especially  mentioned  my  name  in  connection 
with  the  arrangement  that  had  been  made. 

Discussing  the  question  of  piece-work  yesterday 
I  think  that  the  matter  was  dealt  with  from  the 
wrong  point  of  view.  Piece-work  produces  more. 
The  individual  man  produces  more,  but  it  does  not 
necessarily  follow,  as  was  argued  yesterday,  that, 
therefore,  it  means  a  displacement  of  labor.  I  be- 
lieve that  in  proportion  as  labor  is  made  more  ef- 
ficient and  productive,  that  the  product  will  be 
cheapened,  the  demand  will  be  increased.  The 
probability  is  that  the  demand  for  labor  will  also  be 
increased  ;  but  that  is  only  one  phase  of  the  question 
and  not  the  most  important  phase  to  my  mind. 
There  is  the  way  of  looking  at  it  from  the  point  of 
view  not  as  to  how  much  wealth  you  are  going  to 
produce,  but  what  sort  of  a  man  you  are  going  to 
produce,  and  it  is  from  that  point  of  view  that  I  am 
against  unregulated  piece-work  all  the  time  and 
overtime. 

You  remember  that  glorious  series  of  pictures 
drawn  by  Bunyan  some  one  hundred  years  ago. 
One  of  them  was  the  man  with  the  .muck  rake,  al- 
ways looking  downwards.  For  him  there  was  neither 
moon  nor  stars,  no  intellectual  development,  noth- 


358  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

ing  of  those  finer  attributes  of  consolation,  but 
simply  raking — raking  his  little  heap  of  mud  all 
the  time.  That  man,  under  any  system  of  unregu- 
lated piece-work,  is  the  man  we  find  in  our  workshops 
to-day.  I  was  around  another  workshop  the  other 
day — and  here  it  cannot  be  mistaken  for  the  other 
one  mentioned,  as  it  was  in  Canada.  It  was  at  the 
meal  hour  and  I  saw  a  man  at  work.  I  inquired 
why  that  man  was  not  off  to  dinner  like  the 
others.  The  answer  was,  "  Oh,  the  molders  are 
working  piece-work.  It  is  not  unusual  with  these 
men  working  piece-work  not  only  to  come  in  here 
to  the  mill  during  the  regular  hours,  but  they  often 
get  to  the  shop  at  five  o'clock  or  six  o'clock  in  the 
morning,  two  or  three  hours  before  the  regular  time." 
That  is  piece-work.  I  am  totally  opposed  to  it, 
unless  it  is  safeguarded  in  the  proper  manner. 

Now,  it  seems  to  me  that  Mr.  Halsey's  plan  has 
to  a  certain  extent  this  defect  of  piece-work  or  system 
of  payments  by  results;  but  it  does  seem  to  me 
that  it  provides  to  some  extent,  at  all  events,  the 
safeguards  that  I  have  in  mind.  With  your  per- 
mission I  will  just  read  to  you  the  agreement  to 
which  Mr.  Halsey  referred,  and  which  has  been  made 
quite  recently  between  ourselves,  the  Amalgamated 
Society  of  Engineers,  representing  the  engineering 
industry  on  the  one  side,  and  the  Federated  Em- 
ployers, representing  the  employers,  on  the  other 
side.  It  runs  as  follows: 

In  the  first  place,  we  agree  to  accept  the  premium 
plan  of  payment,  subject  to  four  conditions. 

In  the  first  place  the  wages  to  be  in  all  cases  guar- 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  359 

anteed  to  the  man,  not  only  for  every  week,  but  for 
every  single  job,  so  that  in  the  event  of  a  man  having 
a  job  that  lasts  five  hours,  if  he  fails  to  make  a  bonus 
on  that  job  and  makes  bonuses  on  other  jobs  during 
the  same  week,  he  is  not  deducted  in  respect  to  the 
bonus  he  has  earned  because  of  the  bonus  he  has 
failed  to  make  on  these  five  hours.  That  is  to  say, 
every  single  job  stands  on  its  own  basis.  If  he  fails 
to  make  a  bonus  on  any  job  he  has  at  the  same  time 
a  guarantee  that  his  rate  of  wages  for  the  day  that 
he  has  been  on  that  job  will  be  paid. 

In  the  second  place  he  is  assured  of  extra  pay- 
ment for  overtime,  or  for  Sunday  work,  which  had 
been  prevalent  prior  to  the  introduction  of  the  pre- 
mium plan. 

In  the  third  place  it  is  agreed  that  there  shall 
be  no  cutting  of  the  time  basis  once  fixed,  unless 
there  is  an  alteration  in  the  machinery,  or  methods 
of  production,  and  then  only  after  full  and  free  dis- 
cussion between  the  parties  who  are  doing  the  work 
and  those  who  are  paying  for  it. 

In  the  fourth  place  it  is  agreed  that  the  employer 
shall  not  introduce  the  premium  bonus  system  unless 
he  has  the  intention  of  adhering  to  it.  That  is  to 
say,  we  make  provision  by  that  clause  against  mere 
experimentation  with  a  view  of  not  pitching  up 
a  man  to  his  top  pitch,  and  then  resorting  to  ordi- 
nary day's  wages  when  the  man's  capacity  is  gauged. 

I  venture  to  say  that  the  problem  is  not  insoluble 
if  this  question  of  piece-work  and  payment  by  re- 
sults were  approached  in  a  proper  spirit.  That  is 
to  say,  if  both  sides  were  anxiously  looking  for  some 


360  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

way  out  of  the  difficulty  or  some  means  which  would 
maintain  that  fellow  feeling  in  the  workshop  which 
we  as  trades  unionists  must  stand  for.  It  is  essential 
that  we  get  some  system  which  shall  not  break  up 
that  fellow  feeling,  as  piece-work  systems  in  the 
past  have  done,  and  at  the  same  time  succeed  in 
getting  the  best  amount  of  product  in  labor  from 
the  machine.  I  venture  to  say  further,  that  this 
agreement  recently  made,  a  modification  of  Mr. 
Halsey's  plan  of  some  ten  years  ago,  will  contribute 
to  the  development  of  the  engineering  industry  in  the 
Old  Country. 

But  just  let  me  say  in  conclusion  that 
England  is  not  so  decadent  as  some  would  seem  to 
imagine.  There  are  some  things  you  put  up  with 
here  that  we  would  not  tolerate  in  England  for  a 
single  day.  I  have  heard  from  Mr.  Gompers  of 
the  flood  of  handy  men  and  specialists  who  invade 
all  your  occupations,  and  I  have  been  surprised  to 
learn  here  in  this  room  the  pleasant  manner  in  which 
specialist  labor  is  accepted  as  being  inevitable.  It 
seems  to  me  that  it  is  just  the  same  with  that  as  with 
many  other  things — the  more  you  talk  about  them 
being  inevitable,  the  more  inevitable  they  will  be. 
I  believe  that  specialization  in  this  country  has  got 
beyond  the  point  of  permanent  well-being  and  ef- 
ficiency of  your  workmen,  and  if  it  were  not  for  the 
fact  that  you  are  constantly  drawing  from  our  country, 
from  Germany  and  the  Scandinavian  countries, 
if  it  were  not  for  the  constant  influx  here  from  these 
countries,  you  would  have  had  to  train  a  few  more 
mechanics  yourselves. 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  .      361 

MR.  O.  C.  BARBER:  I  am  the  man  referred  to  by  the 
last  speaker  as  having  made  the  remarks  referring  to 
the  strikes  in  England.  I  heard  the  speaker's  explana- 
tion and  I  am  inclined  to  accept  his  apology.  I  was 
in  England  at  the  time  of  these  strikes,  for  a  duration 
of  several  months,  and  was  reading  of  them  daily — 
of  the  position  that  the  proprietor  took  against  the 
employees,  and  I  stated  at  least  what  was  common 
information  over  there,  or  misinformation,  as  the 
case  may  be.  He  says  it  was  misinformation.  The 
facts  will  bear  me  out,  if  the  thing  could  be  properly 
investigated,  that  I  have  stated  the  condition  cor- 
rectly. I  may  have  placed  myself  in  a  wrong  posi- 
tion this  morning,  and  I  want  to  apologize.  I  am  not 
against  trade  unions  or  labor  organizations.  I  think 
it  is  the  spirit  of  the  times  that  people  should  organize 
in  all  the  different  branches  of  business,  and  that  all 
laborers  should  organize.  These  unions  may  be  prac- 
ticable for  accomplishing  specific  purposes,  or  they 
may  be  educational  only.  I  have  no  objection  to  the 
laborer  getting  the  full  amount  and  value  of  his  hire, 
and  I  do  not  believe,  as  a  rule,  that  you  will  find  manu- 
facturers in  the  States  opposed  to  giving  labor  its 
full  value.  Competitively,  we  have  all  got  to  go  to  the 
clearing  house  and  find  out  the  clearing  house  values 
of  all  our  commodities.  If  the  clearing  house  gets  out 
of  joint,  or  if  we  slip  a  cog,  we  are  all  thrown  into 
disorder. 

My  friend  states  that  he  is  opposed  to  piece-work, 
yet  he  has  just  previously  stated  that  the  depression 
in  the  engineers'  strike  was  not  caused  by  the  limiting 
of  work  of  machines.  This  to  me  seems  a  dual  posi- 


362  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

tion.  I  would  like  to  ask  him  if  it  is  not  a  fact,  if 
piece-work  was  permitted  to  go  on  in  the  factory, 
that  these  machines  might  be  made  to  do  double  the 
work,  in  competent  hands? 

It  seems  to  me  the  surer  way  to  reduction  of  hours 
of  labor  is  to  increase  to  the  maximum  the  amount 
of  work  that  can  be  done  within  the  hours  that  are 
labored.  If  these  lines  were  followed  by  union  labor, 
it  would  not  be  long  before  in  eight  hours  as  much 
could  be  accomplished  as  now  in  ten  hours  under 
union  labor. 

You  want  your  freedom — the  laborers  of  this  coun- 
try want  their  freedom  from  these  unions.  They  may 
belong  to  them  and  yet  should  have  their  freedom 
from  them  so  far  as  the  amount  of  labor  each  may  or 
can  do.  Let  your  motto  be  "The  more  work  the 
more  money,"  remembering  that  if  they  do  less  they 
should  receive  less. 

I  know  something  of  the  conditions  of  labor  in 
England.  We  built  a  large  factory  there,  and  know- 
ing something  of  the  conditions,  we  took  our  men 
from  America.  We  took  three  or  four  brick  men, 
carpenters  and  builders  in  each  different  line,  and  we 
made  arrangements  with  the  non-union  people  on  the 
other  side,  giving  them  one  shilling  a  day  more  than 
the  regular  price,  for  the  privilege  that  we  might  hire 
and  discharge  our  people  at  will.  The  principle 
worked  very  well.  We  did  not  put  a  half  dozen 
people  along  the  line  of  a  brick  building  that  we  were 
constructing,  proportioning  the  men  along  the  line, 
to  have  every  man  wait  for  the  slowest  workman  to 
put  in  his  brick,  the  fast  workmen  lying  idle,  but  we 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  363 

gauged  them  up  to  a  reasonable  fast  workman,  and 
discharged  those  who  could  not  keep  up  their  end. 
By  working  along  these  lines,  and  by  giving  them  a 
shilling  a  day  more  than  their  regular  wages,  we  were 
able  to  put  the  building  up  quicker  than  anything 
that  had  been  done  in  that  neighborhood  for  years. 

I  believe  in  paying  labor  all  that  it  is  worth,  and 
giving  them  their  freedom  to  work  as  long  as  they 
have  a  mind  to,  making  eight  hours  a  day  a  govern- 
mental day,  or  six  hours  if  you  like,  to  make  that  the 
standard,  it  matters  very  little  which.  It  finally  re- 
solves itself  down  to  so  much  an  hour.  I  do  not 
think  the  majority  of  manufacturers  would,  but  they 
ought  to  be  able  to  run  their  factories  ten  hours  a 
day  if  they  have  the  men  who  have  the  strength  to 
work  ten  hours  a  day,  but  you  should  not  try  to  make 
all  men  equal  in  the  factory.  The  brighter  in  that 
way  have  no  chance  to  rise. 

I  think  I  have  said  quite  enough  to  explain  my  po- 
sition. I  believe  in  trade  unions,  where  they  are  edu- 
cational, and  where  by  their  organization  men  can 
get  fair  and  just  wages,  and  where  they  are  not  op- 
posed to  the  proprietor,  but  work  along  in  harmony 
together,  but  you  cannot  force  matters.  You  will 
have  to  follow  along  the  lines  of  least  resistance,  and 
you  will  get  the  same,  if  not  better  results  in  the 
great  clearing  house  of  events. 

MR.  MARCUS  A.  HANNA:  Gentlemen  of  the  Commit- 
tee— To  those  who  have  favored  us  with  their  presence 
during  this  session,  I  want  to  return  our  thanks  for 
your  efforts  and  your  attention.  It  would  be  a 


364  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

pleasure  to  me  to  review  briefly  some  of  the  topics 
which  have  been  under  discussion,  but  time  has  saved 
you  from  that,  and  in  closing  our  sessions  I  wish  to 
bring  up  a  summary  from  my  standpoint  of  the  good 
that  has  come  and  will  come  from  this  meeting. 
This  free  interchange  of  ideas  and  unlimited  discus- 
sion will  go  before  the  public — the  great  audience  of 
the  American  people — and  the  benefits  derived  there- 
from will  be  apparent  in  the  near  future  in  the  criti- 
cism and  opinions  which  may  come  personally  and 
through  the  public  press. 

For  myself,  I  feel  greatly  encouraged  by  the  re- 
newed interest  in  this  great  subject;  by  the  close 
attention  and  attendance  from  those  who  are  joining 
with  us,  encouraging  us  by  their  presence  and  by 
their  efforts  to  continue  along  the  lines  which  we 
have  laid  down. 

Summing  up  the  good  that  may  yet  come,  in  my 
judgment  we  saved  the  best  for  the  last,  because  the 
result,  the  last  analysis  of  this  great  question,  will 
be  found  in  the  industrial  agreements.  (Applause.) 
It  will  be  intelligence,  as  it  is  understood  from  the 
standpoint  of  the  merits  of  both  sides.  It  will  be 
effective  in  its  results  as  it  is  best  understood  and 
appreciated.  I  for  one  do  not  expect  that  we  will 
reach  the  best  results  in  one  year,  or  two  or  more 
years;  but  under  the  influences  and  inspiration  and 
the  encouragement  we  have  had  so  far,  I  am  sure 
that  our  committee  will  go  forward  along  these  lines; 
will  keep  up  the  effort,  inspired  by  the  same  desire 
to  do  good  to  all  classes.  We  will  expand  our  influ- 
ences; we  will  extend  the  scope  and  personnel  of  our 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE.  365 

committee ;  we  will  keep  abreast  or  a  little  in  the  lead 
of  public  opinion,  and  as  we  receive  that  support  from 
the  people  we  will  go  on  to  the  fruition  of  our  effort. 

I  intended  to  have  said  a  few  words  upon  this 
agreement  proposition.  I  have  had  experiences  for 
many,  many  years  in  that  sort  of  negotiation  and 
settlement  of  labor  troubles,  but  I  will  only  cite  one 
incident  which  is  so  fresh  in  the  minds  of  everybody 

I  agree  with  all  the  speakers  upon  the  proposition 
of  compulsory  arbitration.  I  am  opposed  to  it.  The 
new  question  of  compulsory  investigation  deserves  con- 
sideration. I  believe  there  is  something  in  that, 
but  I  do  believe  that  the  power  to  settle  all  differences, 
outside  of  law  making,  outside  of  coercion,  outside 
of  undue  influences,  will  result  from  the  conference 
of  the  employer  and  the  employee,  with  the  one 
desire  to  do  that  which  is  best  for  both.  (Applause.) 
I  do  not  believe  under  the  present  condition  of  things 
in  incorporation  of  trades  unions. 

Referring  to  the  coal  strike  for  a  few  moments: 
In  the  discussion  during  that  great  strike  many 
expressions  were  made  as  to  a  better  way  to  settle 
those  differences,  and  that  was  one  of  the  suggestions 
— the  incorporation  of  labor  organizations — so  that 
some  authority  might  be  given  under  the  '  law,  if 
law  must  be  resorted  to,  to  save  the  conditions 
which  were  precipitated  by  that  strike,  and  in  the 
interest  of  all  the  people. 

I  heard  the  argument  that  it  was  an  absolute 
necessity  that  such  incorporation  must  be  had, 
because  a  contract  with  workingmen  was  worthless. 
The  test  has  come,  for,  when  in  their  dire  extremity, 


366  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

the  anthracite  miners  of  Pennsylvania  appealed 
to  their  fellows  in  the  bituminous  fields  in  the  West 
to  come  out  and  strike  in  sympathy,  in  order  that 
conditions  might  be  forced  upon  this  country  which 
would  enforce  a  settlement  of  the  trouble,  it  is  known 
to  many  others  that  the  bituminous  coal  miners 
thus  appealed  to  were  under  contract  for  a  year, 
known  as  the  Interstate  Contract,  between  the  pro- 
ducers and  the  operators  of  those  sections  of  the 
country.  Under  the  constitution  of  the  United 
Mine  Workers  it  became  the  duty  of  their  president 
to  call  together  a  delegates'  convention  to  act  upon 
that  question.  Those  of  us  who  had  followed  this 
trouble  from  the  beginning  with  interest  and  anxiety 
felt  that  it  was  an  important  moment  in  the  history 
of  the  labor  question  as  to  how  that  would  be 
settled.  For  my  part  I  had  confidence  as  to  the 
outcome.  The  convention  met  at  Indianapolis, 
represented  by  persons  or  proxies  of  1,000  delegates, 
and  the  appeal  was  made  coming  from  the  striking 
miners  of  the  anthracite  region  to  their  fellow  work- 
men under  most  distressing  circumstances  and  con- 
ditions, under  influences  which  are  so  potent  among 
that  class — brotherhood  sympathy.  That  con- 
vention appointed  a  committee  of  twenty-three 
to  consider  the  application.  They  spent  nearly  a 
whole  night  considering  it;  they  were  confronted 
with  the  fact  that  they  had  made  a  contract  with 
their  employers,  which^  for  the  fourth  time  had  been 
made,  to  work  for  a  scale  agreed  upon,  to  be  in  oper- 
ation for  one  year,  upon  which  the  sales  of  coal 
were  made  and  contracts  binding  upon  the  operators 


INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 


were  made.  After  full  consideration,  allowing  sen- 
timent to  play  its  part  upon  the  minds  and  hearts 
of  those  men,  with  calm,  cool  judgment  and  loyalty 
to  their  agreement,  that  committee  reported  unan- 
imously against  a  sympathetic  strike.  (Applause.) 
That  report  was  made  to  that  convention  the  day 
following,  and  was  adopted  unanimously  by  1,000 
votes.  They  agreed  to  stand  by  the  word  they  had 
given  in  making  that  contract. 

Now,  gentlemen,  that  case  came  up  at  a  time 
when  all  the  conditions  surrounding  it  were  as  ag- 
gravating and  forcible  as  could  be  brought  into  play. 
Therefore  I  say  that  the  test  has  come  and  the 
men  have  won  the  confidence  of  the  whole  people 
of  this  country,  and  as  far  as  I  am  concerned,  sat- 
isfied me  that  we  want  no  incorporation  of  labor 
organizations.  (Applause.) 

But  that  is  not  all.  If  this  good  work  is  to  go  on 
and  we  are  to  succeed,  those  who  control  the  labor 
organizations  of  this  country  and  are  putting  the 
truth  before  the  people  of  the  advantages  which 
may  come  from  such  organizations,  must  be  just  as 
careful  that  all  things  connected  with  unions  which 
shall  in  any  way  detract  from  their  usefulness,  which 
shall  in  any  way  rob  them  of  the  support  of  the  whole 
people,  must  be  carefully  eliminated.  There  are 
good  trusts,  they  say,  and  bad  ones.  There  are 
good  labor  organizations  and  bad  ones.  There 
have  been  means  used  in  strikes  which  cannot  be 
defended,  and  I  was  glad  to  hear  Mr.  Gompers  say, 
what  I  have  known  always,  that  most  labor  organ- 
izations of  to-day  are  opposed  to  any  such  measures, 


368  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE. 

and  I  know  further,  that  those  who  are  co-operating 
in  this  work  are  using  all  the  means  and  influence  in 
their  power  to  eradicate  such  measures.  I  know 
that  it  is  their  intent,  and  I  know  that  operators 
and  employers  are  co-operating  with  them,  in  order 
to  make  organized  labor  attractive  to  all  classes  of 
labor;  and  to  do  that  the  individual  rights  and  priv- 
ileges of  American  citizenship  must  be  observed. 
There  must  be  nothing  that  will  come  athwart  men's 
consciences,  even  to  lead  them  to  hesitate,  much  less 
than  to  declare  against  organizations  which  are  for 
the  mutual  benefit  of  all  classes. 

I  hope  we  may  all  be  spared  to  come  together  a 
year  from  this  time  in  this  city  to  bear  witness,  to 
give  evidence  of  the  fruits  that  have  come  from 
these  discussions;  to  testify  that  the  industrial 
committee  of  the  Civic  Federation  is  doing  good 
work,  which  should  merit  the  support  of  all  classes 
of  people  in  our  country, 

I  am  not  afraid  of  criticism  of  our  efforts  along 
these  lines;  I  do  not  shrink  from  any  sort  of  dis- 
cussion as  to  the  motives  which  prompt  us.  But 
year  by  year,  if  I  am  spared,  I  want  to  point  to 
results  in  justification  of  the  integrity  of  purpose 
and  endeavor  that  this  organization  is  striving  for. 
I  hope  that  when  we  meet  again  we  will  have  to  hire 
a  larger  hall — I  am  sure  we  will. 

As  I  said,  I  have  been  greatly  encouraged  by  the  at- 
tendance from  day  to  day  and  the  interest  manifested 
in  these  discussions.  While  they  have  been  without 
limit,  at  the  same  time  I  know  they  have  been  within 
the  lines  of  proper  spirit  and  consideration  for  others. 

Adjourned. 


INDEX. 


Adams,  Charles  Francis,  In- 
vestigation and  Publicity, 
58-78,  88-91,  263 

Amalgamated  Society  of  En- 
gineers and  Premium  Sys- 
tem, 110 

American  Methods  of  Pro- 
duction, 5,  6 

American  Newspaper  Pub- 
lishers' Association,  294- 
300 

American  Pump  Company 
and  Premium  System,  127- 
128 

Anthracite  Coal  Commission, 
327,  328;  Strike,  365 

Apprentices,  95,  96,  144-149, 
158,  187-189,  280-283 

Arbitration,  243-245,  341- 
342 

Commission ,    68—7 1 
Compulsory,  49,  63,  263 
In  England,  24 
National  Civic  Federation, 

327 

Newspaper        Publishers', 
296-298 

Baldwin  Locomotive  Works, 
Philadelphia,  133,  144, 
150,  151,  255,  278,  279, 
280,  282,  283 

Barber,  O.  C.,  President  Dia- 
mond Match  Company, 
288-293,  361-363 

Barbour,     George     H.,     Na- 


tional Association  of  Man- 
ufacturers, 231-243,  272, 
273. 

Barnes,  G.  N.,  Secretary 
Amalgamated  Society  of 
Engineers,  Great  Britain, 
84-92,  132,  133,  143,  263, 
264,  279,  354-360 

Boston  &  Maine  Railroad 
Company,  61,  62 

Boycott,  16 

Brooks,  John  Graham,  350- 
354 

Carpenter,  C.  U.,  National 
Cash  Register  Company, 
38-48,  137 

Chicago  Street  Railway  Com- 
mission, 50-56,  262,  263 

Clark,  Prof.  J.  B.,  quoted, 
199 

Commons,  John  R.,  92-105, 
123,  138 

Compulsory  Arbitration,  49, 
63,  263 

Contract  Sharing,  144 

Driscoll,  Frederick,  Com- 
missioner American  News- 
paper Publishers'  Associ- 
ation, 293-300 

Easley,  R.  M.,  Secretary 
National  Civic  Federation, 
226,  243,  245-249,  300, 
354 


369 


37° 


INDEX. 


Eight  Hour  Day  (see  Hours 

of  Labor) 
Employers,  Organization   of, 

39,  315-316,  336-338 

Factory  System,  164-173 
Foremen,  40,  41,  44-46 
France,  Ship  Yards,  292 
Franchise  Grants,  Street  Rail- 
ways, 50-52 

Garland,  M.  M.,  ex-President 
Amalgamated  Association 
of  Iron  and  Steel  Workers, 
324-335 

Germany,  Hours  of  Labor, 
14 

Gompers,  Samuel,  President 
American  Federation  of 
Labor,  120,  147-151,  184, 
188,  232,  255-275,  280- 
287,  292 

Great     Britain,    Arbitration 
and  Conciliation,  22 
Conditions   of  Labor,  291, 

362 

Engineers'  Strike,  355-356 
Premium  Plan,  109-116 

Gunton,  Prof.  George,  163- 
187,  268 

Halsey,  Frederick  A.,  Asso- 
ciate Editor  American 
Machinist,  105-123,  126, 
128,  134,  358,  360 

Hanna,  Senator  M.  A.,  Chair- 
man Industrial  Depart- 
ment National  Civic  Fed- 
eration, 1-2,  363-368 

Hours  of  Labor,  163-187, 
189-202,  203-206,  211- 
243,  246-249,  254,  268- 
273,  292-293,  331-334 

Investigation  and  Publicity, 

58-78,  88-91 
Ireland,   Archbishop,   28-37, 

284-288 


Iron  Holders'  Union  of  North 

America,  317-319 
Iron  and  Steel  Workers,  324- 

329 

Jenks,   Prof.   J.   W.,  Cornell 

University,  343-350 
Justi,  Herman,  quoted,  39 

Keefe,  Daniel,  President 
International  Longshore- 
men's Association,  303- 
312 

Labor  Departments  for  Large 
Industrial  Organizations, 
38-48 

Low,  Mayor  Seth,  2-4 

Machinery,  11-18.  88,  97, 
135-136,  151-162,  174,  214 

Marburg,  Theodore,  Vice- 
President  American  Eco- 
nomic Association,  21 1-231 

Marks,  Marcus  M.,  President 
National  Clothiers'  Asso- 
ciation, 249-255,  247,  248 

McCammon,  Judge,  quoted, 
246 

McMackin,  John,  State  Labor 
Commissioner  of  New  York, 
78-83 

Mather,  Samuel,  of  Pickand- 
Mather  Company,  Cleve- 
land, Ohio,  300-303 

Minimum  Wage,  98 

Mosely,  Alfred,  4-25,  84-86, 
106-107,  122,  143,  149- 
151,  187-189, 210, 275-284 

National  Cash  Register,  La- 
bor Department,  38-48 

National  Civic  Federation, 
2-3,  18,  22,  23,  26,  27,  28, 
30-31,  33-34,  57,  67,  79, 
83,  84,  141,  244,  245,  255- 
257, 307-312, 314, 324, 326- 
327,  363-368 


INDEX. 


National  Founders'  Associ- 
ation, 312-324 

Newspaper  Publishers'  As- 
sociation, 293-300 

Nixon,  Lewis,  President 
United  States  Shipbuild- 
ing Company,  202-211. 

Non-Unionists,  259,  284-288, 
293 

O'Connell,  James,  President 
International  Association 
of  Machinists,  124-151, 
188-189 

Pensions,  Old  Age,  331 
Piece  Work,  8-9,  86-87, 100- 

108,     120-140,     203,     209, 

357-359 
Premium  Plan,  105-144,  358- 

359 
Publicity,  58-82,  88-91 

Rainsford,  Rev.  William  S., 
Rector  St.  George's  Church, 
New  York  City,  144-146 

Restriction  of  Output,  15, 16, 
92-105,  134-136,  156-157, 
252-254,  271 

Sikes,  G.  C.,  Secretary  Chi- 
cago Street  Railway  Com- 
mission, 48-58 

Smith,  A.  Beverly,  Secretary 
Lithographers'  Association 


of  the  United  States,  335- 
343 

Street  Railways,  48-67,  262- 
263 

Towne,  Frederick  T.,  Presi- 
dent National  Founders' 
Association,  312-322 

Trade  Agreements,  293-343, 
351-354,  364-365 

Trade  Schools,  149 

Trusts,  18,78 

Typographical  Union,  295, 
296 

Underwood,  Frederick  A., 
President  Erie  Railroad 
Company,  243-245 

Valentine,  James  F.,  Vice- 
President  International 
Holders'  Union,  322-324 

Wage,  Minimum,  98 

Walls,  P.  J.,  Secretary  Blast 
Furnacemen's  Association, 
England,  25-28 

Weber,  A.  F.,  Chief  Statistic- 
ian, Department  of  Labor, 
New  York,  189-202 

White,  Henry,  General  Secre- 
tery  United  Garment 
Workers  of  America,  151- 
162 


HOME  USE 

CIRCULATION  DEPARTMENT 
MAIN  LIBRARY 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 
1 -month  loans  may  be  renewed  by  calling  642-3405. 
6-month  loans  may  be  recharged  by  bringing  books 

to  Circulation  Desk. 
Renewals  and  recharges  may  be  made  4  days  prior 

to  due  date. 

ALL  BOOKS  ARE  SUBJECT  TO  RECALL  7  DAYS 
AFTER  DATE  CHECKED  OUT. 

REG.  Clfc     APR     7  75 


LD21 — A-40m-12,'74 
(S2700L) 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


U.C.  BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


